189 A of 2004 .
Again, after trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt this time by V Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior vide its judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004.
In the year 1978 Tehsildar Nazul , Gwalior, vide order dated 21.11.1978, passed in case No.
It is further pointed out that there was an entry of Pukhta Maurusi in favour of Surjan Singh.
The first appellate companyrt this time VIII Additional District Judge, Ashok Nagar, Gwalior , after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal.
But, later it was found that the names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the companyumn No.
It is companytended that the plaintiffs failed to establish the requisites of adverse possession pleaded in the amended plaint and they cannot be said to have acquired the title of Bhumiswami by virtue of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.
As such, on death of Surjan Singh, name of plaintiff Nomi Singh was entered in the revenue record as pakka krishak.
On the other hand, the case of the respondents plaintiffs is that the above mentioned land belonged to one Zamindar Srilal, who granted oral patta to Surjan Singh father of respondent No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
5A of 2005, and the one dated 30.11.2004 passed by the trial companyrt V Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.
1 Nomi Singh , and he was recorded as Maurusi Kashtkar hereditary tenant in the revenue record.
After hearing the parties the High Court held that the companyrts below should have taken adverse inference against the defendant as it has failed to produce original khasra entries from Samvat 2005 onwards.
189A of 2004.
After the matter was remanded by the first appellate companyrt, as above, the plaint was re numbered as suit No.
12 of Khasra, i.e. in the companyumn relating to entry of the encroachers.
However, said decree, passed by X Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, in suit No.
Once again the plaintiffs approached to the first appellate companyrt and filed Civil Appeal No.
Hence, they filed suit in 1991 numbered as Suit No.
Per companytra, learned companynsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the land in question belonged to the then Zamindar, before Zamindari Abolition, who granted oral patta in favour of Surjan Singh father of plaintiff Nomi Singh .
It further held that the companyrts below should have presumed that the plaintiffs have automatically become Bhumiswamis after enforcement of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and as such allowed the second appeal, and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate companyrt, and that of the trial companyrt.
560A/68 74 75, declared the respondents as encroachers over the land in question.
256 of 2005 was instituted by the plaintiffs present respondents before the High Court.
Aggrieved by the orders of the trial companyrt and that of the first appellate companyrt, Second Appeal No.
However, the industrial area companyld number be set up and a part of the land appears to have been given on lease to plaintiff respondent Nomi Singh on 11.5.1951 for a period of one year.
144A of 1991.
376 to 400 and 401 to 411, measuring 45 bigha 10 biswa situated at village Dinapur, Tehsil and District Gwalior, was acquired by the State Government for setting up industrial area, in the year 1946.
Briefly stated, case of the appellant defendant is that land in question bearing survey Nos.
144A of 1991, was set aside by the first appellate companyrt, i.e., X Additional District Judge, Fast Trek Court, Gwalior, vide its judgment and decree dated 25.2.2002 who remanded the matter back to the trial companyrt, after allowing application for amendment in the plaint moved by the plaintiffs at the first appellate stage.
5A of 2005 challenging the decree dated 30.11.2004.
The trial companyrt in the first round before remand dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 17.7.1998.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30.5.2011, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, in Second Appeal No.
256 of 2005 whereby said companyrt allowed the second appeal and set aside the decree passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No.
