ORDER

This present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Dewas in Regular Civil Appeal No.84/2016 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2016 passed by the learned III Civil Judge, Class-II, Dewas in Civil Suit No.27- A/2013 whereby the plaintiff's suit was allowed by the trial Court.

2. The brief facts of the case is that respondent filed civil suit bearing no.27-A/2013 for declaration and permanent injunction and stated that it is registered under the Company Act and Mr. Surendra Shukla has knowledge about the matter and he was appointed by the Company to file the suit. The Company had purchased agriculture land Halka No.17, Khasra No.104 Rakba 2.898 hectare and Khasra No.105 Rakba 0.672 Total Rakba 3.570 gram Jetpura Distrct Dewas from Ramesh, Balram and Shubhash s/o Nanuram through registered sale deed. From the date of purchase the Company is in possession of the suit land. The respondent/Company filed an application before the Revenue Inspector for demarcation and as per the inspection report 1.15 Jarib appellant encroached the land in the form of road.

3. Respondent/Company filed an application under the provision of Section 250 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code which was still pending and during the pendency of the application, the respondents filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking relief that respondent have not encroached the ownership land of the respondents.

4. The appellant filed reply and stated that appellant not encroached any part of the respondent's ownership land. The Town and Country Planning in the year 2004 sanctioned the approach rod from Khasra no.105,107,146 and 147 for ownership land of Khara No.110/1,110/2 and 109 of Gram Jetpura District Dewas

5. The trial Court after framing issues and taking evidence dismissed the suit filed by the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 26.10.2016 filed a first appeal before the first appellate Court under Section 96 of the CPC. The first appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the appellant/defendant filed this second appeal and submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the the first appellate Court is perverse. The first appellate Court did not consider the fact that the approach road is not encroached because the Town and Country Planning by valid sanction had given the approach road from several Khasra vide Ex.D-1. The first appellate Court misinterpreted the Ex.P-1 Commissioner report and Ex.D-1 sanction of Town and Country Planning. The first appellate Court did not consider the fact that how the person without approach road reach to their ownership land. It is further submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have wrongly dismissed the suit. The findings of trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are perverse and against the evidence available on record.

On above grounds it is submitted that substantial questions of law as mentioned in the appeal arises for determination by this Court and appeal be admitted for final hearing.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court with due care.

8. It is apparent from the record that respondent/plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant and pleaded that appellant tried to encroach the same part of Khasra No.105 which belonged to the plaintiff. On the other hand, appellant admitted that Khasra No.105 belongs to the respondent/plaintiff. Perusal of the record, it is found that demarcation has been done by Revenue Inspector in the presence of the plaintiff and d