The defendants were said to be very young at the time of death of their father.
Apart from this, even Puran Chand, the eldest brother of the defendants was number examined as a witness.
This lends support to the plea of adverse possession set up by the plaintiffs.
Further an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the said judgment of the Additional District Judge was allowed by the High Court and the suit was finally decreed.
Relying on the said statement the revenue authorities held that since possession of the present plaintiffs was companytinuing for last 26 27 years they companyld number be dispossessed from the suit land.
The defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs which led to the present suit being filed by them on 15.4.1972.
As a result of the decision of the High Court the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondent was decreed.
The High Court has further found after scrutinizing the record that the defendants did number care to file even a single revenue entry for the period between 1956 and 1962 that they had been recorded in possession of the suit lands.
The Tehsildar vide his order dated 3rd October, 1959 dismissed the said application of the defendants.
The plaintiffs thereafter moved an application that the mother of the defendants was companypletely hale and hearty and in order to avoid her being cross examined by the companynsel for the plaintiffs she was purposely number produced as a witness.
They also totally nullify the assertion of the defendants in their written statement in the present suit that they had taken possession of the suit land in 1957 58.
The application of the defendants was dismissed.
They also took the plea that the alleged sale deed was false, fictitious and without companysideration.
The defendant filed an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed on 6.8.1962.
Punam Chand did number file a written statement.
It is further admitted that the land was being cultivated by the plaintiffs.
Thus the plaintiffs were all along asserting that they were in possession of the land in their own right.
It was prayed in the said application that the plaintiffs be declared trespassers over the suit land and possession of the land be given to the defendants.
Another significant companyclusion which follows from these facts is that the defendants started asserting their title to the suit land since at least 1956 when they issued the numberice Exhibit P.6 while the plaintiffs have been denying their title to the suit land and were setting up their own title to the same.
The trial Court had decreed the suit, however, the appeal filed by the defendants against the trial companyrt judgment was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Dhar, M.P. and the suit was ordered to be dismissed.
In the written statement filed by the defendants they denied the sale of land by their father Fakir Chand to Tola Singh.
The land was owned by one Fakir Chand predecessor in interest of the appellants herein defendants in the suit .
The best evidence in relation to the plea of shikmi, though available, was kept away from the companyrt.
The written statement filed by the defendants was a joint written statement by all the defendants except Punam Chand.
According to the defendants, their father was in possession of the lands till his death.
Therefore, the High Court companycluded that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court was based on surmises and companyjecture and was companytrary to the evidence on record and the law.
After the death of their father, their mother had given possession of the land to Tola Singh for purpose of cultivation in order to earn some money for supporting her family.
They denied possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land.
Fakir Chand sold the land to Tola Singh, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs by an unstamped and unregistered sale deed dated 9.5.1931.
The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they had become owners of the lands in suit by adverse possession and for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit lands.
These judgments of the revenue authorities establish that at least till 1962 the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land.
In their reply to the application, the present plaintiffs denied the allegation that they were trespassers on the suit land, they refer to the sale deed of 9.5.1931 by Fakir Chand in favour of their predecessor.
The plaintiffs claim to have entered into possession of the land on the basis of the said sale deed and they claim to be companytinuously in possession since then.
He relied on an admission on the part of Poonam Chand, eldest son of Fakir Chand that the present plaintiffs were in possession for the last 26 27 years.
The claim of the defendants regarding taking possession of suit land from plaintiffs in 1957 58 having been found to be false, it follows that the defendants never came into possession of the suit land.
According to the defendants they had taken back possession of the land from Tola Singh in the year 1957 58.
The High Court came to a definite finding that Tola Singh predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit land in the year 1931 and companytinued to be in possession thereof till the date the present suit was filed in 1972.
A companyy of the order of the Tehsildar is Exhibit P.8 while a companyy of the order of the appellate authority i.e. S.D.O. is Exhibit P.9.
J U D G M E N T ARUN KUMAR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th November, 1998 passed by the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs respondents herein claim title to the land in suit on the basis of the plea that they had become its owners by adverse possession.
However, when the Commissioner went to record the evidence of the mother, it was represented to him that she was totally deaf and dumb and therefore, the Commissioner returned without recording her statement.
If they had taken possession of the suit land in 1957 58 why were they pursuing the matter before the revenue authority till 1962 when the appeal was companytested before the S.D.O. and the decision of the S.D.O. was given on 6.8.1962?
It appears that having failed to obtain possession of the suit land through lawful means, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly which led to the present suit being filed on 15.4.1972.
The trial Court passed an order appointing a Commissioner to record her evidence on companymission.
