GADAUA Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by the plaintiffs / appellants was admitted by formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The suit property bearing Khasra No.69/6, total area 4.25 acres, was originally held by Dhanushdhari - father of defendants No.1 & 2. He sold firstly 3 acres of land to Hardevdas by sale deed dated 13-3-1975 and Hardevdas in turn, sold that 3 acres of land out of 4.25 acres to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 26-2-1977 (Ex.P-2) and thereafter, Dhanushdhari also sold further 43 decimals of land to plaintiff No.1 by registered sale deed dated 5-10-1979 (Ex.P-1) and thereby 82 decimals of land was left in the credit and hands of the defendants after death of Dhanushdhari. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties leading to filing of suit for declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs before the institution of suit, filed an application for demarcation of land on which demarcation was conducted on 13-6-1999, but before the demarcation report could be submitted and finalised, the plaintiffs brought suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on 17-1-2000 stating that they are owners and title-holders of 3.43 acres of land purchased from Hardevdas and Dhanushdhari which is being interfered with by the defendants, therefore, they are entitled for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Meanwhile, demarcation report dated 9-2-2000 (Ex.D-7) was prepared which was filed by the defendants and sought to be relied upon by the defendants. In that demarcation report it was reported that some land has been acquired after execution of sale deed. On the basis of said demarcation report, the plaintiffs amended the plaint and sought the amendment based on the demarcation report.

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 3 and 6 filed their joint written statement and maintained that no land of Dhanushdhari was acquired for construction of road and no compensation was paid to Dhanushdhari or to the defendants, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed, as they are in possession of 82 decimals of land.