IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 1^st OF APRIL, 2023 SECOND APPEAL No. 1519 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

KALKA PRASHAD S/O SHRI JAMUNA PRASHAD GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SAGAR ROAD OPP LAW COLLEGE CHHATARPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI RAKESH SAGAR- ADVOCATE )

AND

1. AJUDDI AHIRWAR S/O LATE SHRI HIRWA AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O GRAM BUDOOR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RADDHU S/O DHANUA AHEER, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, GRAM BAJRANG GADH TEH. AND DISTT. CHHATARPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. BHUJWAL S/O DHANUA AHEER, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O GRAM BAJRANG GADH TEH. AND DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. HISABI S/O JEEWAN LAL AHEER, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O GRAM BAJRANG GADH, TEH. AND DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. PAPIYA GHOSH- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2021 passed by 05^th Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 70/2017 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2017 passed by 3^rd Additional Judge to the Court of 1^st Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.3-A/2013.

2. The appellant is the defendant who lost his case from First Appellate Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that Dhanua, the father of defendant No.1 was the owner and in possession of the disputed lands bearing Khasra No. 188, area 0.757 hectares, Khasra No. 189, area 0.020 hectares, Khasra No. 190, area 0.138 hectares, situated in Village Bajranggarh, Tehsil and District Chhatarpur. The father of the plaintiff had got this property in partition with his brother. The father as well as the defendant No. 1 belongs to Ahir caste and their main profession is dairy farm. As per the social arrangement, the work was distributed amongst various caste of the society. As per the arrangement in the village, the job of the Barber was to cut hairs, it was the duty of Carpenter to manufacture instruments of agriculture, it was the duty of Potter to manufacture earthen utensils, it was the work of person belonging to Chamar Caste to dispose of the Carcass of Cattles, to clean the houses during festivals, to manufacture shoes etc. The barter system was prevalent in the village. The father of the plaintiff namely Hirwa was doing the work of Chamari in the house of the father of defendant No.1. In the year 1960 Dhanua, the father of defendant No. 1 in his full senses, gave the land in dispute to the father of the plaintiff in lieu of work done by him. After the lands were given, the father of the plaintiff’s made it useful for agricultural purposes and a deep well was dug. With passage of time, the mal practices which were in existence in villagers came to an end. The father of the plaintiff stopped working for the family of the defendant No.1, however, the father of the defendant No. 1 neither took his land back nor took any action for recovery of possession or for eviction of father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff was in open and hostile possession during his lifetime. On 06.07.2012, the defendant No. 2 went to the spot along with Revenue Inspector and Patwari for demarcation. The petitioner thereafter collected information from Patwari. It was claimed that the plaintiff and his father are in possession of the land in dispute for the last 50 years in the capacity of an owner. The Revenue Inspector as well as Patwari in the presence of the adjoining farmers carried out the demarcation and prepared the Panchnama according to which the plaintiff was found to be in possession of land in dispute for the last 50 years. The defendant No. 2 was never in possession of the land in dispute and no action was ever taken by