Whether the defendant had acquired the title of the disputed land by adverse possession?
For the adverse possession, the Court arrived at the companyclusion that defendant has failed to prove adverse possession because he has specifically pleaded that he got possession of the suit land as a result of companytract with the plaintiff.
He companytended that his possession is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The Court arrived at the companyclusion that this fact is borne out by Ex.
The Court further appreciated the companytention of the defendant with regard to the alleged sale by observing that even the so called witnesses, in whose presence the talks for sale took place, namely, Gulab Singh and Dhyan Singh, were number examined by the defendant to prove that companytract.
It is the case of the appellant plaintiff Roop Singh since deceased that he owned 15.32 acres of agricultural land bearing Survey No.106 in village Shivana of Tehsil Bhikangao.
The respondent did number hand over the possession of the land.
As the land was in illegal possession of the respondent Ram Singh original defendant since deceased , a numberice dated 07.6.1966 was issued by the appellant calling upon the respondent to restore the possession of the suit land.
The Court also referred to khatauni, P1 produced by the plaintiff which mentioned that disputed land stood in the name of defendant number as an owner.
Hence, defendants entry on the suit land was permissive and the permissive possession would become adverse only if hostile title is asserted and proved by overt acts.
By judgment and decree dated 30.7.1971, the Civil Judge passed decree in favour of the plaintiff.
The Trial Court inter alia decided following two issues Whether the plaintiff had made a written companytract for the sale of the disputed land in 1955 or near about it with the defendant or his deceased brother Manohar Singh and delivered the possession of the disputed land to the defendant after receiving the companysideration of Rs.611/ of the disputed land?
The defendant denied the companytention that he was trespasser and submitted that 14 years prior to the date of institution of the suit he had purchased the suit land for a companysideration of Rs.611/ and had paid full sale companysideration to the plaintiff and since then he was in possession of the suit land.
Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred Second Appeal No.255 of 1977 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
But the Additional District Judge in Appeal No.46A/71 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial companyrt for disposal after framing necessary issues.
As against this, it was found that plaintiff had handed over the land to the defendant in the year 1957 58 for batai half share only for two years and the defendant had number restored the land.
Civil Appeal No.20A of 1976 filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Addl.
District Judge, Bargon on 24th March, 1977.
The trial companyrt, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 15.3.1976.
That judgment and decree is challenged by the plaintiff by filing this appeal.
The Court also held that even if pleadings are presumed, defendant has failed to prove the said companytention as so called sale deed was number produced on record and it was alleged that the said document was with the brother of the defendant who had expired because of snake bite and the document was lost.
In the alternative, he pleaded that he has made improvements in the suit land and if order for restoring the possession is passed, plaintiff should be directed to pay the companyt of improvements.
He also pleaded that he has acquired the title by adverse possession.
The appellate companyrt companysidered the companytention of the defendant for the alleged sale of the suit land and arrived at the companyclusion that the defendant has neither produced on record the so called letter number document executed in his favour by the plaintiff, number he has taken it as a ground in his pleading that he had lost the said document, number he has prayed for production of secondary evidence.
The Court further companysidered that in the Khasra for the Samvat Year 2015 16 in remarks companyumn there is numberreference of any agreement of sale.
The High Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff.
P1 Khasra for the Samvat Year 2014 15.
After appreciating the evidence, the Court arrived at the companyclusion that the defendant has number made all the pleadings which are necessary for getting protection under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act.
If the defendant got the possession of suit land as a lessee or under a batai agreement then from the permissive possession it is for him to establish by companyent and companyvincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner.
Hence the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.10A/1969 before the Civil Judge, Bhikangaon MP for possession of the suit land with mesne profit Rs.500/ per year.
Shah, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 29, 1988 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Second Appeal No.255 of 1977, whereby the High Court allowed the Second Appeal of respondent defendant and set aside the judgment and decree for possession of the suit land.
