ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

This is an Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the following judgments and decrees:

i. Judgement and Decree dated 04.08.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.29- A/2011 whereby Civil Suit for permanent injunction and declaration has been dismissed.

ii. Judgment and Decree dated 05.010.2016 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.42/2016 whereby Regular Civil Appeal has been dismissed.

Facts of the in short are in short are as under;

2. The plaintiff is claiming herself as member of backward class. She was married with Nandkishore 18 years ago. They have no moveable or immovable property at Indore. The Nandu expired 7 years ago. Since then she is residing with her father in Village Umariya. She applied to the Panchayat for allotment of piece of land for the purpose of residence. The Panchayat passed resolution No.5 dated 26.01.1998 for allotment of land survey No.60/1 area 30 x 30. Accordingly, the Additional Tehsildar, Indore after completing the enquiry, issued a lease (hereinafter referred to as '' suit land'') in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband both constructed the temporary house. After the death of her husband, she went and started living with her parents and during this period, the defendant No.1 tried to take the forcible possession on the ground that the survey No.90/1/1/1 is allotted in the name of his wife and on the basis of forge lease dated 02.02.1999 in the name of defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 trying to dispossess her, hence, plaintiff filed Civil Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and quashment of lease dated 02.02.1999.

3. The defendant No.1 and filed Writ Statement by submitting that a piece of land of survey No.90/1/1/1 was granted was allotted by the Gram Panchayat in the name of Jayanti Bai on 02.10.1999, thereafter they have constructed the Gumti and covered the land by way of fencing. The defendant No.1 has also constructed a shop and earning his livelihood. The learned Civil Judge has framed six issue for adjudication and held that Ex.P/1 which was never issued by the Tehsildar and in which the word of lease has not been used, therefore, the same cannot be treated as lease. The said lease dated 20.02.1998 issued by the Additional Tehsildar under Section 244 of MPLRC whereas the Additional Tehsildar has no authority to issue the plot of residence. The plaintiff has also not been found possession. Earlier also the plaintiff filed Civil Suit against defendant No.1 Dinesh without claim the possession which she withdrawn on 14.09.2010. Vide judgment 04.08.2015, the Civil Suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed First Appeal, the Appellate Authority also considered the entire evidence as well additional document filed under Order

41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. and dismissed the Appeal.

4. This Appeal is pending since 2015 awaiting argument on admission.

The appellant has proposed following substantial question of law for admission of this Appeal.

( )

अ क् या िव(cid:8)ान िवचारण अधीनस्थ न्यायालय का िनण(cid:18)य एवं जयप(cid:23) िव(cid:24)ध िवधान के अनुसार ?

दोषपूण(cid:18) होकर िव(cid:24)धके (cid:32)ावधान(cid:33)के िवपरीत होकर िनरस्त िकयेजानेयोग्यहै

( )

ब क् या हक क(cid:38) घोषणा और व्यादशे के (cid:24)लये वाद कब्जा वापसी क(cid:38) सहायता नह(cid:42) चाही होने के

34 ?

उपरांत धारा िविन(cid:18)िदष्ट अनुतोषअ(cid:24)धिनयम िव(cid:24)धअनुसार वादीकावाद(cid:32)चलनयोग्यहै

( ) 41 27 स क् या िव(cid:8)ान अधीनस्थ अपील न्यायालय (cid:8)ारा वादी के आवदे नप(cid:23) आदशे िनयम , सी.पी.सी. का (cid:24)जसके (cid:8)ारा वादी ने वादम(cid:48) आवश्यक दस्तावजे (cid:32)स्तुत करने क(cid:38) (cid:32)ाथ(cid:18)ना क(cid:38) थी उसे िनरस्त ?

करनेम(cid:48) वधै ािनक (cid:23)ुिट क(cid:38)

5. The entire suit of the plaintiff is based on Ex.P/1 and both the Courts below have held that this document cannot be treated as lease. The Ex.P/1 is only certificate issued by the Additional Tehsildar certifying that the land 900 sqft of survey No.90/1/1 occupied by the plaintiff the provision of MPLRC, 1959. It is further certi