Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Y. P. Rathore
For the Respondent : Ranjeet Sen

ORDER : – Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission.

This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under section 100 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (in short CPC) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-12-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in RCA No. 205/2017, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 6-1-2017 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Narayangarh, District Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 101-A/2016 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which has been dismissed by the trial Court.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that Iliyas Mohammad Ejaj Mohammd and Ishaq Mohammad as Khudashat and their names were registered in the revenue record as pakka tenant and landlord. On 15-8-1947, they had migrated to Pakistan. Appellant/plaintiff and other persons filed three separate civil suits bearing No. 166-A/2004, 167-A/2004 and 168-A/2004 before the Civil Judge, Narayangarh by showing themselves to be sub-farmer of Iliyas Mohammad, Ejaj Mohammd and Ishaq Mohammad and sought relief of declaration and their title, but all the three civil suits were dismissed on 30-1-2005, then the appellant and other persons preferred appeal before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Mandsaur. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 30-12-2008 with liberty to the plaintiff to file afresh civil suit. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since 15th August, 1947. His possession was entered in the revenue record as landlord but in the year 1973-74, name of the plaintiff along with other persons were deleted and name of respondent No. 2 was entered into revenue record. As per the provision of Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the suit land was vested in respondent No. 2/Government of India, but respondent No. 2 never took possession of the suit land through Custodian Officer and no such notification was issued. The provision of section 264 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code is not applicable in respect of land of the Central Government, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff filed civil suit against the respondent/defendant.

3. The respondent denied all the allegations regarding possession of the plaintiff over the suit property by stating that on 31-3-1974, on behalf of respondent No. 1 Revenue Inspector had taken possession of the suit land, therefore, no question arises regarding acquiring adverse possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property for last 30 years. Order of Mutation dated 23-3-1974 is also binding upon the plaintiff. The suit being time barred is not maintainable.

4. Learned trial Court, after recording the evidence and after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 6-1-2017. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, hence this second appeal has been preferred before this Court by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are contrary to law and in the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff and committed grave error in interpretation of Administration of Evaccue Property Act, 1950. The respondent No. 2 is exclusively owner of the disputed land and respondent No. 2 has