PREM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been preferred by the Defendants under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2011, whereby the Plaintiff's claim for declaration of title and injunction has been decreed. Since the judgment and decree under appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties to this Appeals shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a claim for declaration of title and injunction in a mandatory form for removal of the illegal construction raised by the Defendants during pendency of suit was made by the Plaintiff with regard to the property in question bearing Kh.No.2/11d/6 admeasuring 0.101 hectare situated at village Baikunthpur, as described in red colour in plaint schedule A, submitting, inter alia, that one Laxmin Bai, D/o Samund Rawat was the owner of the property bearing Kh.No. 2/11d/1 admeasuring 0.444 hectare and from whom, he purchased a part of it, i.e., 0.101 hectare under the registered deed of sale dated 15.06.1998 and which was numbered as Kh.No. 2/11d/6 admeasuring 0.101 hectare upon mutation. According to the Plaintiff, the said Laxmin Bai by executing another registered deed of sale dated 08.07.2002 had sold Kh.No.4/1 area 0.271 hectare and Kh.No.5/1 area 0.065 hectare to defendant No.1 Kailash Sharma, who in turn, had sold the part of it to Defendants No.2 & 3, namely, Vijay Choudhary and Prem Prakash Shrivastava by executing two registered deeds of sale, both dated 15.10.2003. It is pleaded further that the said Defendant Kailash Sharma, after purchasing the suit property, has created a forged document by incorporating the digit "4" under the digit "5" by his hand-writing at page No.3 of it and converted the said Kh.No.5/1 into Kh.No.5/4/1 and by changing further the map of it, the description of his (Plaintiff) land has been shown therein, which he purchased under the sale deed dated 15.06.1998. It is pleaded further that Defendants No. 2 & 3, after purchasing the same from said Defendant No.1, started the construction work, and therefore, he has been constrained to initiate the proceedings before the Tahsildar Raigarh for restraining them from raising the alleged work.

(3.) It is pleaded further that the alleged Kh.No.5/4/1 admeasuring 0.065 hectare as shown in sale deed dated 08.07.2002 was not recorded in the name of his vendor Laxmin Bai and instead Kh.No.5/1 area 0.016 hectare was in fact recorded in the Register maintained by the Deputy Registrar, Raigarh.