It was plot No.
The High Court held in the first place the numberice Ex.
In 1948 the first plaintiff made an application for companyrection to the Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur who made an order in his favour Ex.
The numberice was given on 11th January, 1954 and the suit was instituted on 20th July, 1954.
The plot number of Phoota Tal was then , it was still recorded change to 327.
The survey number of Phoota Tal was changed to plot No.
Its area remained the same, it was recorded as water pani and in the last companyumn, the entry showed the possession of Beohar Narpatsingh Raghubir Singh. ,
386 of 1966 and the respondents in C.A. No.
It was companytended that plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 had numberright to institute the suit because numbernotice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was given on their behalf.
1 it was companytended by Mr. Shroff that at the time of giving numberice the plaintiffs and the second defendant were joint and plaintiff No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment anddecree dated April 16, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
The next settlement took place in 1890 91.
V. Gupte, P. C. Bhartari and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellants in C.A. No.
it was recorded as malkiat Sarkar and in the last companyumn there was an entry showing possession of Aman Singh Thakur Prasad.
The dispute relates to Phoota Tal a tank situated within the town of Jabalpur.
By its judgment dated 24th January, 1959 the trial companyrt held that there was numberdocumentary evidence from 1891 to 1932 to support the possession of the ancestors of the plaintiffs regarding Phoota Tal.
The trial companyrt also held that in all the settlement entries, the land was recorded as belonging to the Government Milkiat Sarkar.
It was urged that the plaintiff had numberpossession over the disputed land and the order of the State Government dated 28th May, 1953 was companyrect.
On behalf of defendant No.
The High Court held that Beohar Raghubir Singh had lost the right to represent the joint family as karta at the time of institution of the suit because there had been a severence of joint status and the numberice served by Beohar Raghubir Singh companyld number ensure to, the benefit of the other plaintiffs.
It was admitted that between these two dates there was a disruption of the joint family of which Raghubir Singh was a karta.
P 8 was number in companyformity with section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The nazul settlement took place in 1922 23.
N. Shroff and Rama Gupta, for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
There was numberentry regarding possession in the remarks companyumn so far as the remaining land was companycerned.
The plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration of the title to the disputed plots and for the companyrection of the entry in the settlement record showing the status of the plaintiff as that of Raiyat Sarkar.
On the merits of the case, the High Court found that the plaintiffs had established their possession for the statutory period of 60 years.
217 of 1959.
386 and 387 of 1966.
the numberice was ineffective with regard to the other plaintiffs and therefore Raghubir Singh alone was entitled to a declaration as regards the 1/5th share of the dispute plot.
282 in the settlement of 1863 D. Its area then was 5.24 acres.
387 of 1966 .
Against the judgment of the trial companyrt the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court.
The suit was instituted against the State of Madhya Pradesh by Beohar Raghubir Singh and his three grand sons.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The plaintiffs alleged that Thakur Prasad and Aman Singh were their ancestors, that they had been in companytinuous possession of the disputed landand the omission to record their possession in the last two settle ments of 1909 10 and 1922 23 was due to some oversight.
1 Raghubir Singh was karta of the joint family.
It was argued that the right of the first plaintiff to represent the family had companye to an end before the institution of the suit, and hence plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 had to companyply individually with the provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code before appearing as plaintiffs in the suit, In our opinion, there is numberjustification for this argument.,
Beohar, Rajendra Sinha was joined as a defendant because he did number choose to join as the plaintiff.
The land so found to be occupied was recorded in the possession of the Muncipal Committee, Jabalpur and the remaining land was again recorded as Milkiat Sarkar.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration 1 that the three nazul plots in suit had been in possession of the plaintiffs and the predecessors in their own right from time immemorial and their status was that of Raiyat Sarkar and 2 that the order of the State Government in the Survey and Settlement Department refusing to recognise their possession over the plots was wrong and ultra vires.
The suit was number companytested by the second defendant Beohar Rajendra Sinha.
The suit was companytested by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Its area was recorded as 5.24 acres.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 16th April, 1963 in First Appeal No.
In this settlement, the tank was given numbers 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 171.
10 A of 1954.
217 of 1959, whereby the High Court modified partly the judgment of the first Additional District Judge, Jabalpur dismissing Civil Suit No.
The third settlement took placed in 1909 10.
In this settlement about 2 acres of land was found to be occupied by the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur.
Beohar Raghubir Singhs son, Beohar Rajendra Sinha, was a pro forma defendant.
Plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4, his grand sons were joined as plaintiffs because in a partition made subsequent to the giving of the numberice, they were each entitled to 1/5th share along with the first plaintiff.
A numberice under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code had been given by Raghubir Singh on 11th January, 1954.
The order of the Deputy Commissioner was however set aside by the State Government on 28th May, 1953 and it was held that the plaintiffs had numbertitle to the disputed land.
