Dismissed

Murarilal Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Chhattisgarh HC18 Mar 2019SA/551/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction based on adverse possession, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine finding it devoid of merit as the appellant failed to establish the requisite 30-year possession or raise a substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed in limine.

Murarilal Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

SA No. 551 of 2006

¶4

Murarilal Agrawal S/o Babulal Agrawal, aged about 45 years, Occupation- Business, R/o Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant/Plaintiff

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Tehsildar, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents/Defendants

¶9

For Appellant	: Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate
For State/respondent No. 1	: Mr. Sanjay Ku. Agrawal, G.A.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶11

18.03.2019

¶12

Heard on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶13

Plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction challenging the order dated 20/04/1999 was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal being preferred, it was affirmed by the first appellate Court, against which this second appeal has been preferred.

¶14

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the order dated 20/04/1999 was without jurisdiction and authority of law and the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and contrary to record and gives rise to substantial question of law for determination.

¶15

The plaintiff filed the suit stating that he is in possession of the suit land owned by the Government for the last 30-35 years, therefore he has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse

¶16

possession and has also claimed relief that the order dated 20/04/1999 directing eviction of the plaintiff is also null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and the challenge to the order dated 20/04/1999 is also unsustainable and it has been duly upheld by the first appellate Court.

¶17

In order to establish adverse possession against the State Government, possession of 30 years is required. The Plaintiff, in his plaint, has stated that he is in possession of the suit land for the last 25-30 years but, both the Courts below have held that he has failed to establish that he has been in possession of the suit land for 30 years over the Government land for claiming title by way of adverse possession and even otherwise the suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another 1

¶18

Both the Courts below have also not found favour to challenge the order dated 20/04/1999, which is a finding of fact based on evidence on record and I do not find it either perverse or contrary to record and no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

¶19

Accordingly, the second appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without noticing to the other side.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

Judge

Harneet

(2014) 1 SCC 669

Murarilal Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murarilal Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Yogbai and Others Vs Rupram and Another

Usha Devi Vs Mahant Rambali Das and Others

Ganesh and Another Vs Raghunath and Others

Haradhan Dey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Krishna Bai Vs (Deleted) Hafizunnisha Begum

Dwirika Bai and Others Vs Maniram and Others