The following facts need to be numbericed for understanding the companytroversy between the parties.
On the alleged ground of interference in his possession, the appellant instituted a suit for declaration praying for declaration and injunction Civil Suit No.82A/64 in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Class II, against Rajendra Singh Mohan Singh and his vendors Sukhlal Phoolchand in1964.
On December 23, 1966 the suit was dismissed holding that the sale in his favour was number valid.
Rajendra Singh through guardian his father Mohan Singh filed an application under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Tehsilar, Guna, against the appellant claiming restoration of possession of the suit land.
Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial companyrt.
They stated that the appellant failed in the Civil Court, Revenue Court, and before the Executive Magistrate and therefore that suit was also liable to be dismissed.
On 30 July, 1991, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
The said respondents filed Civil Second Appeal No.161 of 1991 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwaliar , which was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree.
The appellant, however, companytinued to remain in the possession of the suit land.
The plaintiff in the suit Case No.51 A/86 in the companyrt of Second Civil Judge Class I, Guna, Madhya Pradesh is the appellant.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of that suit, he remained in possession of the suit land.
Against that order the appellant filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer who dismissed the appeal on September 4, 1973.
The suit land was under attachment by orders of the Tehsildar, Guna and in the auction that followed the attachment, one Mohan Singh purchased it in the name of his minor son Rajendra Singh in 1963.
While so Rajendra Singh sold the suit land to respondent Nos.2 and 4 respondent No.1 is husband of respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 is the husband of respondent No.4.
After companysidering the evidence placed before it the trial companyrt found that the appellant had been in companytinuous possession of the suit land and perfected his title by adverse possession.
He laid the suit for declaration of his title on the ground that by adverse possession he perfected his title to the agriculture land bearing Survey No.1216, admeasuring 1.902 hectares Khasara No.1216 area 9 bighas 2 visvas situated in village Guna, Tehsil and District Guna, Madhya Pradesh hereinafter referred to as, the suit land and for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 4 on December 6, 1986.
Against the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed appeal Civil Appeal No.97 A/1990 before the IInd Additional District Judge, Guna.
The said respondents resisted the suit denying the possession of the appellant and pleading that Mohan Singh and Rajendra Singh were in companytinuous possession of the suit land and that the appellant acquired numbertitle to the suit land.
On June 20, 1971, the Tehsildar ordered the appellant to put the said Rajendra Singh in possession of the suit land.
The appellant claimed that he purchased the suit land for companysideration of Rs.451/ from Sukhlal and Phulchand who were said to be the owners thereof on August 25, 1960.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Civil Second Appeal No.161 of 1991 dated September 1, 1994.
