Heard the learned counsel for the applellant 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

2

Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in RCA no. 205/2017, thereby

affirming the judgment and decree dated 06/01/2017 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

15/08/1947, they had migrated to Pakisthan. 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 30/01/2005, then

the appellant and other persons preferred appeal before the 2^nd 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 15^th 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

3

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

31/03/1974, 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 23/03/1974 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 06/01/2017. 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

4

disputed land and respondent no 2 has no title over the suit property.

Both the courts below have committed grave error in interpretation of

section 2(d) and 2(j) of the Administration of Evaccue Property Act,

1950. Both the Courts below have failed to consider oral and

documentary evidence produced by the appellant. Both the Courts

below have ignored the pleadings made by th