2018 Supreme(MP) 547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.C. SHARMA, J.
Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Others - Appellants
Versus
Bachhraj Factories Ltd. - Respondent
F.A. No. 43 of 2003
Decided On : 07-02-2018
For the Appellant : B.I. Mehta, Senior Counsel with J.B. Mehta.
For the Respondents: Amit Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Arjun Agrawal.
The plaintiff's claim for ownership based on adverse possession was not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to prove the title of the predecessor-in-title and the acquisition of rights by adverse possession.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Companies Act, Land Acquisition Act - Civil Suit No. 23-A/2002 - Summary: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of the land through adverse possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title and possession. The trial Court held that the plaintiff's claim was inconsistent and mutually destructive, and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court set aside the trial Court's judgment, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the title of the predecessor-in-title and the acquisition of rights by adverse possession. The plaintiff's claim for ownership based on adverse possession was not maintainable. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of the land through adverse possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff was set aside by the High Court, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the title of the predecessor-in-title and the acquisition of rights by adverse possession. The plaintiff's claim for ownership based on adverse possession was not maintainable. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Issues: The plaintiff's claim for ownership based on adverse possession, the inconsistency and mutual destructiveness of the plaintiff's claim, and the failure to prove the title of the predecessor-in-title.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's claim for ownership based on adverse possession was not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to prove the title of the predecessor-in-title and the acquisition of rights by adverse possession. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
1. The present First Appeal is arising out the judgment and decree dated 14-12-2002 passed IXth Additional District Judge (Fastrack Court), Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 23-A/2002, Bachhraj Factory Limited. v. Nagarpalika Nigam Ujjain.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and in the alternative that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by virtue of an adverse possession. The plaintiff has also sought relief in the form of mandatory injunction praying that possession of the suit property/part of land be delivered to him.
3. The facts of the case further reveal that the plaintiff Bachhraj Factory Limited is company registered under the Companies Act, has filed a civil suit through his power of attorney holder Mahendra Mehrotra and a suit was filed in respect of land bearing Survey No. 1332/1/1, area 17 bigha and 30 biswa and out of the aforesaid, it was pleaded that the plaintiff/company is owner of the land, having an area 14 bigha and 13 biswa.
4. Undisputedly, on the aforesaid land, as on date the Ujjain Municipal Corporation is in possession and its buildings are in existence over the suit land. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed on 10-9-1962 from one Khan Saheb Nazar Mills and the total land purchased vide sale deed dated 10-9-1962, was 41 bigha and 13 biswa. The land in dispute in respect of the civil suit is 14 bigha and 13 biswa.
5. It was further stated that the plaintiff has purchased the land vide sale deed dated 10-9-1962. Apart from the suit land, in respect of the property admeasuring 27 bigha another civil suit was filed against the State Government i.e. Civil Suit No. 10-A/2000 and the same was dismissed on 3-8-2000, against which, a first appeal was preferred and at the relevant point of time, the first appeal was pending.
6. It was further pleaded that the land bearing Survey No. 52 is comprising out of 17 bigha and 13 biswa out of which, the suit land is 14 bigha 13 biswa and the present survey number of the suit land is 1332/1/1-A. It was also stated that out of the part of property ad-measuring 6 bigha was acquired by the State Government by paying a sum of Rs. 37,000/- and the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit land on account of sale deed dated 10-9-1962. The plaintiff has further pleaded that he has paid all municipal taxes as well as water taxes from time to time. It was also pleaded that in respect of the same property, notice was issued by the Collector for acquiring the same land under the Land Acquisition Act for construction of a cloth market, and therefore, possession of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendants.
7. A prayer was made that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the land in question, and therefore, the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain be directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property, as the plaintiff is the owner of the property.
8. A written statement was filed in the matter and it was stated that the land in question was exclusively under the ownership of Nagarpalika Nigam, Ujjain and Khan Saheb Nazar Mills was not owner of the suit property.
9. It was also disputed that a part of land was acquired for construction of Police Housing Colony. It was also denied that the plaintiff was the title holder and it was also denied that the predecessor-in-title was having a clear title of the suit property.
10. The trial Court has framed following issues and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court has held as under:-
esjs iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh prqFkZ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k }kjk fuEukafdr okn Á'uksa dh jpuk dh xbZ ftuds le{k esjs }kjk fudkys x, fu"d"kZ vafdr %&
Øekad okn Á'u fu"d"kZ
1 D;k egsUnz egsjks=k dks oknh dh vksj ls ;g okn ÁLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj gS \ gkW
2 D;k mTtSu uxj ikfydk fuxe {ks= esa fLFkr Hkwfe losZ uaŒ 1332 [kku lkgc utj vyh feYl] mTtSu ds LokfeRo D;k vkf/ki