IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA th ON THE 5 OF MAY, 2022 SECOND APPEAL No. 202 of 2021 Between:-

GANESH S/O SHRI GOVERDHAN , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, GRAM NAVGHATKHEDI, DADA DARBAR KE PAS, BARWAH, TEHSIL BARWAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI J.S. DAVE ADVOCATE )

AND HARJEET SINGH S/O SHRI HARBANSH SINGH , AGED ABOUT

1. 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST BARWAH, TEHSIL BARWAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR KHARGONE HOME

2.

DEPARTMENT DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

STATE OF M.P. THROUGH TEHSILDAR REVENUE

3. DEPARTMENT TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under section 100 of Civil Procedural Code, 1908 (in short CPC) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.3.2020 passed by the 2^nd Additional District Judge, Badwah District West Nimar in Regular Civil Appeal no 1388/2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31/10/2014 passed by the Civil Judge Class I Badwah in Civil Suit no 22-A/2014 whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

Facts of the case in brief are that plaintiff instituted a suit inter-alia claiming that he has purchased the suit house admeasuring 40x18 ft. from Prakash Singh through registered sale deed dated 21.11.1997. Thereafter the plaintiff has constructed a house after obtaining valid permission from gram panchayat. The house was registered in the name of plaintiff and he is residing in the suit house alongwith his family members openly, peacefully and without any interference well within the knowledge of previous owner and all concerned. But defendant no.1 has made a false complaint before the Collector therefore, Tehsildar Badwah has issued a notice against the plaintiff regarding unauthorized possession over the land in question therefore, appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial court.

Respondent/defendant no 1 filed written statement wherein plaint averments are refuted and it is claimed that suit house was situated on the government land which was allotted for construction of National Highway No. 27. Gram Panchayat has no right to issue such construction permission. Sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff is forged. Suit is not tenable and it is to be dismissed. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and directed the parties to lead their evidence. After trial, the Trial Court has held that the suit house was situated on the government land and seller Prakash Singh had no valid right to sell out the suit land to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant /plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court, upon re- appreciating of evidence placed on record, affirmed the findings of facts, so recorded by the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are illegal and not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence. Both the Courts below have failed to consider oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellant. It is also argued that the Trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit preferred by the appellant. Both the Courts below have ignored the pleadings made by the appellant, therefore findings of both the Courts below are perverse, which is against the evidence available on record and also based upon the unwarranted interference. The defendants no. 2 & 3 did not enter in the witness box to controvert the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts b