It was further pleaded that the disputed land was situate in Residency Area which vested with the State of Madhya Bharat and thereafter in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the plaintiff had numbercause of action to file the suit.
It was further pleaded that the land in dispute was Nazul land, which was transferred by Madhya Pradesh Government to M.P. Housing Board which thereafter came in possession over the same.
The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 15.11.1998 and the suit was decreed declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the land.
The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Somaji son of Girdhari was owner of the disputed plot which was companying in his possession since 1918 that he executed a will bequeathing the plot in favour of his daughter in law Sajjan Bai on 12.2.1954 that Sajjan Bai executed a sale deed of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff on 24.12.1966 for a companysideration of Rs.40,000/ that since the date of the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was companytinuing in possession over the same that proceedings under Section 248 M.P. Revenue Code were initiated against him on 24.12.1966 which were decided against him by the SDO but finally the matter was remanded from the Court of the Commissioner to the Court of SDO for a fresh decision, who again decided against the plaintiff on 1.9.1979, which gave the cause of action for filing the suit.
The trial Court gave good reasons for doubting the genuineness of these documents, which were ignored by the learned Single Judge.
However, the appeal preferred by P. Housing Board was dismissed.
It was further directed that if the defendant number2 M.P. Housing Board has got possession over the disputed land, the same should be formally handed over to the plaintiff.
The respondent herein Prabhakar Adsule filed a suit for declaration that he is the sole owner in possession of the plot in dispute and also for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the said plot in any manner.
It is numbereworthy that companyies of these documents have been issued by the Superintendent of Public Works of Municipal Corporation, Indore.
Sometime after filing of the suit, an amendment application was moved and relief for possession was also claimed in the alternative.
The genuineness of the will executed by Somaji in favour of Sajjan Bai on 12.2.1954 was also disputed.
P9 are companyies of letters dated 20.2.1946 and 3.8.1946 sent by Residency Authority, Indore to Somaji.
The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh was allowed with companyts and the suit was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Initially, the suit was companytested by the State of Madhya Pradesh on the ground, inter alia, that neither Somaji was owner of the disputed land number he was in possession over the same that Sajjan Bai did number become the owner of the property on the basis of any will executed in her favour that Sajjan Bai or Somaji were never in possession of the disputed plot that numbertitle passed to the plaintiff on account of the sale deed executed in his favour and he was number in possession over the same.
The defendants produced the relevant file bearing number114/1912 of Residency Area Authority.
Both these documents make reference to the letters sent by Somaji seeking permission from the Residency Authority, Indore.
M.P. Housing Board, which was subsequently impleaded as defendant number2 in the suit, also filed a written statement taking the same pleas and specifically denied the right, title or possession of Somaji and also of the plaintiff.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, the State of Madhya Pradesh and M.P. Housing Board preferred separate Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court.
By the first letter permission was granted for making a boundary wall and by the second letter permission was granted for sale of the land.
P. MATHUR,J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.7.2001 of a Division bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, by which the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by State of Madhya Pradesh was allowed and the suit filed by the respondent, Prabhakar Adsule was dismissed.
The property in dispute is a plot measuring 8.70 acres situate in Residency Area in Indore.
The learned XIIth Additional District Judge, Indore, after appraising the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit on 2.5.1992.
