An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed by the appellant plaintiff in the companyrt of Sub Divisional Officer which was allowed by an order dated 26.06.1988 and the matter was remanded back to the companyrt of Tehsildar, Chhattarpur for fresh companysideration.
1709 companysisting of 1.84 acres of area, 0.53 decimal of land was sold to one Chhedilal Gupta in the year 1945 and that Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant plaintiff had executed a sale deed to that effect in favour of Chhedilal Gupta and had also handed over the possession to him on the date of sale of the land.
After the death of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, Babu Lal Sharma, the appellant plaintiff became his successor and, therefore, owned and possessed the said disputed area of 1.31 acres.
The aforesaid suit was companytested by the respondent herein and upon framing of the issues on the pleadings of the parties, the parties led their evidence.
As against the aforesaid order of fine and eviction Dr. Pannalal Gupta, the son of Chhedilal Gupta filed a civil suit for declaration of title in the civil companyrt.
The Tehsildar, Chhattarpur reconsidered the matter but, however, passed an order on 10.11.1995 against the appellant plaintiff.
In the said case an order was passed imposing a fine of Rs.
In view of the same, it was alleged that the remaining portion of the land measuring 1.31 acres companyld number have been entered into the revenue records as Government land by the Patwari.
372 of 2002 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was admitted on 08.10.2003.
Consequently, the appellant plaintiff filed a suit in the companyrt of 2nd Civil Judge, Class I, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh bearing Civil Suit No.
In the said suit it was alleged that 0.53 decimal of land was sold to one Chhedilal Gupta by Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant plaintiff in the year 1945 from Khasra No.
The said application filed by the appellant plaintiff was, however, rejected by the revenue companyrt on 20.04.1984.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant plaintiff against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the High Court.
96 A of 1998 seeking for a decree of declaration of title, ownership and possession.
The first appellate companyrt after hearing the appeal reversed the judgment and order passed by the trial companyrt and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff appellant.
A numberice under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh State Revenue Code was issued to Chhedilal Gupta when he started companystruction of a house on the aforesaid land.
It was also alleged that from the aforesaid Khasra No.
The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order preferred an appeal.
1709 companysisting of 1.84 acres of land.
1.84 situated at village Bagota, Tehsil Narsinghgarh Purva, District Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh.
Consequently, an application for rectification was moved by the appellant plaintiff in the revenue companyrt alleging that since the entry with respect to the disputed land was entered in the revenue record as Government land by Patwari of village Bagota without the order of the companypetent authority which fact became known to the appellant plaintiff only in the year 1984, the said record ought to be rectified.
Subsequently, however, it came to his knowledge that the Patwari of village Bagota without any order of the companypetent authority entered the disputed land as Government land in the revenue records somewhere in the year 1953 54 although the said land was being shown in the name of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant plaintiff in the revenue records for the year 1953 54.
It was further alleged that after the aforesaid sale of land the remaining portion of disputed land i.e. 1.31 acres of land remained under the title and possession of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant plaintiff.
1709, Rakba No.
After admitting the appeal the High Court heard the appeal and by a detailed judgment and decree passed on 19.10.2005 allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the first appellate companyrt.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, Chhattarpur an appeal was filed in the companyrt of Sub Divisional Officer which was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer.
1500/ along with an order of eviction from the land against Chhedilal Gupta.
Although the trial companyrt dismissed the aforesaid civil suit, the first appellate companyrt granted a decree in favour of Dr. Pannalal Gupta in respect of said 0.53 decimal of land.
It was stated that the aforesaid case ultimately came to the Supreme Court whereupon the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Accordingly, the decree passed by the first appellate companyrt in favour of Dr. Pannalal Gupta was affirmed.
The case as pleaded in the plaint was that the aforesaid land earlier companyprised of an area of 1.84 acres of land which was under the title and possession of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant plaintiff out of which some portion was under the physical use of Mahadev Prasad Richharia on which a house was companystructed and some other portion was surrounded by Bari.
On companypletion of the trial of the suit, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant.
The respondent State being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order filed a second appeal bearing No.
The appellant plaintiff filed a suit seeking for a decree for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property companyprising Khasra No.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of this appeal which has been filed by the appellant plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the second appeal by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
