IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 3^rd OF APRIL, 2023 SECOND APPEAL No. 1099 of 2014 BETWEEN:-

SMT. SANGITA SWARNKAR W/O SHRI HARIOM SWARNKAR, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.26, PARWARI MOHALLA, CHHATARPUR, TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY DR. RASHMI PATHAK- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH COLLECTOR CHHATARPUR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE), CHHATARPUR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. TEHSILDAR CHHATARPUR, TEHSIL &

DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHANTI TIWARI- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENTS/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 02.08.2014 passed by 1^st Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 36A/2013 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2013 passed by 3^rd Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.

24A/2012.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who has lost her case from both the Courts below.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Khasra No. 578, area 2.275 hectrars. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the Eastern side of Khasra No. 578, area 2.275 hectares, some land was lying barren and accordingly one Hukla Kachhi occupied the same and made it cultivable. He spent lot of labour and money for making the land fit for cultivation. Since Hukla Kachhi was in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the name of Hukla was recorded as Gair Hakdar Kashtkar in the revenue record. The said fact was well within the knowledge of the defendants. It is further pleaded that for recording the name of a person as Gair Hakdar Kashtkar, no separate proceedings were required and no application was required and no order by any Competent Authority was necessary. Patwari used to go for spot inspection in order to verify that which crop has been sown by which person as well as to verify the capacity in which the person is in possession of the land in dispute. Hukla remained in possession of the land in dispute up to Samwat 2029-30. The M.P. Land Revenue Code came into force w.e.f. 02.10.1959 and on the said date, Hukla Kachhi was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute and was taking crops. Thus, w.e.f. 02.10.1959, Hukla acquired the Bhoomiswami rights and only rectification of record was required to be done by the defendants. However, the defendants did not perform their duties promptly and for that neither Hukla Kachhi nor plaintiff are responsible. Hukla Kachhi died in the year 1969-70 and he was succeeded by his son Hardas Kachhi and daughter Ms. Fuliya. After the death of Hukla Kachhi, Hardas Kachhi and Fuliya made an application for mutation of their names. After due verification, the names of Hardas Kachhi and Fuliya were recorded. Hardas Kachhi and Fuliya Kachhi were the Bhoomiswami and this fact was well within the knowledge of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants have no right, title or possession over the land in dispute. For the last 33-34 years, no steps were taken by the defendants for dispossessing Hukla Kachhi and his legal representatives, therefore, they have otherwise also perfected their title by way of adverse possession. After the death of Hukla Kachhi, his legal representatives namely Hardas and Fuliya executed a registered sale deed dated 01.03.1986 in favour of Ramesh Prasad for 0.809 aare. After the said sale deed, Ramesh Prasad Tikraya became the owner of 0.809 aare. On 13.07.1989, Ramesh Prasad Tikraya alienated the said property to Dr. Subhash Choubey S/o Shri Jagdish Choubey and also handed over the possession of the same to Dr. Subhash Choubey. From 13.07.1989, Dr. Subhash Choubey became the owner of the land in dispute. The name of the Dr. Subhash Cho