AAMLA BAI Vs. KIRTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs was admitted for hearing on 17/11/2007 by formulating the following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) The two plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction stating inter alia that with respect to the suit land situated at Village Bhadaura, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur admeasuring 3.62 acres in total, their mother Sunderbai had filed Civil Suit No. 267-A/59 against the father of defendants No. 1 to 6 namely Mote Rathore and one Mohan in which plaintiffs' mother was declared to be the title-holder of the suit land and she was also held entitled for decree for possession by judgment and decree dated 14/12/1961 (Exhibit P/7) and since no appeal or revision was preferred against that, it has attained finality. After the death of plaintiffs' mother, the names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the revenue records on 11/10/1985. It was further pleaded that on 25/04/1940, plaintiffs sold some part of the suit land to Dhela Bai, Natthu, Narayan Das, and Purushottam and thereafter, purchasers from plaintiffs have been in continuous possession of the said suit land and only 1.65 acres out of the total suit land remained with the plaintiffs, which got mutated by the defendants in their names after the decision of the civil suit in collusion with the Revenue Officer. On appeal being preferred, the matter was remanded by the Commissioner to the lower Revenue Officer which led the plaintiffs to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 4, 6 and 8 filed their written statement and opposed the plaint averments stating inter alia that plaintiffs' suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as Dhela Bai and Natthu, being purchasers from the plaintiffs, ought to have been impleaded as a party/defendant in the suit. It was also pleaded that instead of plaintiffs, defendants are in possession of the suit land, as such, plaintiffs are not entitled to get decree for permanent injunction in their favour.