CHHOTELAL SINGH Vs. MEKRU AND UTTARKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short 'CPC), original defendants/appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 10.3.1995 passed by the Additional Judge, Sakti to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/84, affirming the judgment & decree of decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alternate, for possession dated 23.1.84 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 57-A/84.

(2.) THE present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on 10.2.2012 on the following substantial questions of law : Whether finding of the Courts below relating to allenation of the land by co-owner Ramnath is perverse ? Whether in the light of sale deeds exs.D-1 and D-2 and admission of plaintiff Mekru in para 8 of his evidence the courts below would have dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff ?

(3.) AS per pleadings of the parties, on 30.3.59 plaintiff Mekru and Ramnath had purchased the suit property bearing khasra no. 1108 area 0.88 acre situate at Sakti. After purchase of the suit property Ramnath has constructed house and kolabadi over his share. Rest land was owned and possessed by plaintiff Mekru. On 6.12.68 Ramnath has executed sale deed in favour of Laminarayan and Mangalchand relating to his share subsequently, Laminarayan and Mangalchand have sold the share purchased from Ramnath to defendant Uttarkumar, who was Government servant, therefore, sale deed was executed in the names of Chhotelal, Chakradhar Singh and Padamdhar Singh. On 19.5.76 defendant Uttarkumar tried to demarcate the land by barbate wire and further he has tried to take possession on part of the land owned by plaintiff Mekru. Subsequently he came to know that Uttarkumar has succeeded in mutation of the land of 0.22 acre owned by plaintiff Mekru in the makes of his minor sons and father. Thereafter suit for declaration and permanent injunction in alternate, for possession was files. The defendants have denied the allegation. Defendant No.1 has files separate written statement and has denied the allegation made in the plaint. Defendant No.2 has also files separate written statement and has supported the claim of defendant No.1. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Additional Civil Judge Class-1 has decreed the suit. Same was affirmed by the Additional Judge, Sakti to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur.