Non-filing of a written statement by defendants does not absolve the plaintiff from proving their case; burden of proof remains on the plaintiff.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 16 OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 60 of 2006 MUNNA LAL Versus PRADEEP AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for appellant.

ORDER Heard the question of admission.

2. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Chachoda, Camp Guna in Civil Appeal No.14A/2004, as well as, judgment and decree dated 01.04.2003 passed by Second Civil Judge Class II, Guna in Civil Suit No.168A/2000.

3. Appellant is plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

4. The facts necessary for disopal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiffs, Survey Nos.814, 815, 815 Min., 816/2 total area 0.648 hectare situated at Village Chhawani Cantt. Guna is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and the said land is disputed land.

5. It is the case of plaintiffs that plaintiffs and their father Kunjilal are in possession of the land in dispute for the last 40 years since the lifetime of their father Kunji Lal, lifetime of Harishankar who was the father of defendant No.1.

Signature Not Verified Pradeep and lifetime of Radha Prasad who was the father of defendant No.5 Ramashankar and plaintiffs and their father were cultivating the same. Houses of plaintiffs are also standing on the said land from the lifetime of Kunji Lal. A Well has also been dug for cultivation purposes and the plaintiffs are cultivating the land. In the revenue record, property was recorded in the name of Radha Prasad and after his death, names of Harishankar and Ramashankar were mutated. After the death of Harishankar, name of Pradeep and his wife Vidya Devi and daughters Sangeeta Bai as well as Sunita Bai were recorded. Kunji Lal had expired about 20 years back. Radha Prasad had expired about 15 years back, Harishankar had expired about 8 to 10 years back. During the lifetime of Kunji Lal, defendant No.5 Ramashankar and his brother Harishankar and father Radha Prasad Tiwari had tried to forcibly take the possession of land which was in possession of Kunji Lal. However, plaintiffs and Kunji Lal succeded in protecting their possession. A threat was also given by defendant No.5 Ramashankar, his brother Harishankar and father Radha Prasad that since their names are recorded in the revenue records, therefore, they would initiate legal proceedings for taking possession. It was claimed that plaintiffs are in open and hostile possession. In the revenue record of Samwat 2018-19, name of father of plaintiffs was recorded as the person who is in possession. It was claimed that from Samvat 2026 till Samvat 2032-33, names of plaintiffs were recorded as the persons in possession. Thereafter, names of plaintiffs were not recorded in spite of the fact that they are in possession. Defendants have filed an application before SDO, Guna for diversion of Survey No.815 and by letter dated 12.08.1998, SDO, Guna has sought NOC from Nazul Officer. Accordingly, spot instpection report was submitted. As soon as the plaintiffs came to know about the aforesaid act, then they submitted an objection to the Nazul Department and since plaintiffs were in cultivating possesion, Signature Not Verified therefore, Nazul Department directed for keeping the proceedings in abeyance, but prior thereto the SDO, by order dated 08.09.1998, passed the order of diversion. The order of diversion was challenged by plaintiffs by filing an appeal, but the appeal has also been dismissed by Collector. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an application before Tahsildar, Guna for recording their possession in the revenue record. Patwa