Possession is a disputed question of fact and mere entry in revenue records does not establish title.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondents.

This Second Appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-2018 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2015, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-2-2014 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in Civil Suit No. 44-A/2012.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal in short are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is their case that the suit land consists of Survey No. 219 area 13 Bigha 7 Biswa and Survey No. 222 area 2.633 hectare. The appellants were granted Patta of the said land and they remained in possession and were continuously cultivating the property. The respondents are the influential persons, as defendant No. 1 had remained Sarpanch for 10 years and accordingly, he obtained a Patta of Survey No. 219 area 10 Bigha and from Survey No. 222 an area of 5 Bigha 11 Biswa has been given to defendant No. 1 and from Survey No. 222/1 min an area of 2 Bigha has been given to defendant No. 2 on Patta. On 25-9-2012 the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellants and made an attempt to take possession. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed an appeal for cancellation of the Patta and also filed a suit for injunction.

4. The defendants filed their written statement and it was pleaded that they have received the Patta in accordance with law.

5. The trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence dismissed the suit filed by the appellants by holding that the plaintiffs have failed to file any documentary evidence to show their title and possession over the land in dispute. Even the defendant No. 3/State has not pleaded that any Patta was ever given to the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs have not challenged the Patta given to the private defendants.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal which too has suffered dismissal by judgment and decree dated 17-12-2018 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Morena in RCA No. 14-A/2015.

7. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the appellants have filed the present appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law : –

“i. Whether learned Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit of plaintiffs particularly when plaintiffs title is duly proved ?

ii. Whether the Courts below erred in law in not deciding the issue which is going to the crux of the matter and which has been proposed as issue before the appellate Court also ?

iii. Whether the Courts below have erred in law in holding that merely because Patta has been executed, therefore, plaintiffs do not have any right while previous possession of plaintiffs over the land has been duly proved ?

iv. Whether without identification of the boundary of the property, the Patta which has been executed in favour of defendants can be said to be rightly executed without specification of the boundary thereof ?

v. Whether the Courts below erred in law in ignoring the Ex-P/1 to P/4 the entries which are showing continuous and consistent possession of the plaintiffs as owner ?

vi. Whether the Courts below have erred in law in refusing the injunction to the plaintiffs when his possession has been duly recorded ?

vii. Whether merely because State has executed the Patta right of plaintiffs can be said to be vanished?

Any other substantial question of law which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be framed.”

8. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the Courts below committed a material illegality by ignoring the Khasra Panchshala, Ex.P/1 to P/4, to show the continuous constant possession of plaintiffs as ow