SANTOSH KUMAR KASHYAP Vs. TIJAURAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-8-2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 26-A/2010 by IX Additional District Judge, (FTC) Bilaspur dismissing Appellant's appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21-4-2010 passed by the trial Court whereby Plaintiff's suit has been decreed.

(2.) Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for the suit land situated at village Jonki bearing Khasra No. 758/1 area 0.30 Acre against the Appellant as well as Respondents No. 2 to 8. According to the Plaintiff, the suit land was his ancestral property. In the Adhikar Abhilekh 1954-55, it was recorded in the name of his father Nakchhed Sahu. After death of his father Nakchhed Sahu, Plaintiff along with his brothers inherited the suit land and their names were jointly recorded in the revenue records. Pursuant to partition between the Plaintiff and his brothers in the year 1985, the suit land fell in his share and since then he is continuously in its possession. In the year 2007, the Appellant applied for demarcation and at the time of demarcation, the Plaintiff came to know that the suit property has been sold by father of the Respondents No. 2 to 6 and husband of Respondent No. 7 to the Appellant without any right or title over it and the Appellant in connivance with the revenue authorities got his name entered into the revenue records and is threatening the Plaintiff to dispossess him. The Appellant as well as Respondents No. 2 to 7 have filed separate written statement. According to Respondents No. 2 to 7, the suit property was earlier ancestral property of late Ledhva. On partition, the suit property fell in his share. His name was entered into revenue records, was also in its possession, therefore, he sold the suit property to Appellant vide sale deed dated 31-12-1999 by executing registered sale deed in Appellant's favour. The suit land is not Plaintiffs ancestral property nor the Plaintiff is having any interest or possession over it and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The Appellant in his written statement has stated that on due inquiry it was found by him that the suit land was recorded in the name of late Ledhva in Adhikar Abhilekh, 1954-55 and thereafter it remained in the name of late Ledhva in the revenue records till its purchase by him on 31-12-1999 and he got the land mutated in his name and the suit is liable to be dismissed.