KODURAM Vs. KARTIK DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 17th November, 1997 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Raipur, Camp Baloda Bazar, in Civil Appeal No. 19-A/97 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Class 1, Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No. 84-A/1991. One Beniram Sahu was the owner of land bearing Kh. No. 815 area 0.040 hectares and Kh. No. 861 area 0.129 hectares (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"), situated in Village Khanduwa. He died some time in the year 1981 and the plaintiffs being his legal representatives inherited the same. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration of title and possession. It is the plaintiff's case that the suit land was given on lease by late Beniram to defendant No. 1 Kartik Das for a period of two years. In the year 1978, the plaintiffs have cultivated the land. However, the same was seized in a case filed by the defendants under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they were in peaceful possession of the suit land till 1983, however, the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants on account of a decision in proceedings filed under Section 145, Cr.P.C.

(2.) By filing written statement, the defendants denied that they are in possession of the suit land as its lessee. According to them, in the year 1976, late Beniram entered into agreement of sale with them for a sale consideration of Rs. 1400/- and after receiving the same had also handed over its possession and since then they are in its possession. They are always and are still ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed, and therefore, are entitled to protect their possession under the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer Property Act, 1882 (for short "the Act").

(3.) The Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, the first appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendants was allowed by the Court below dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. Hence, this second appeal.