BALRAM SINGH Vs. SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against appellant/defendant for declaration, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction and for setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Courts. It was pleaded in the plaint that land bearing kh. No.791/1, 791/2, 791/3, 791/4, 791/5, 791/6 total admeasuring 3.32 acres situated at Baradwar was purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale-deed dtd. 11/2/1974. Out of the said purchased property, land bearing kh.no.791/5 admeasuring 0.74 acres was acquired by the State Govt. for construction of canal, compensation for which has already been awarded to the plaintiff. Subsequently, on account of re-numbering of khasra number, land was re-numbered as Kh. No.842/1, 730 and 843 total admeasuring about 2.58 acres which is subject matter of suit. Land was duly mutated in name of plaintiff on 25/10/1992. However, later on, at the time of re-numbering of khasra numbers, original sale deed has been misplaced by the concerned revenue officer. Thereafter, certified copy of the registered sale deed was obtained by the plaintiff. It was pleaded in the plaint that appellant/defendant, in connivance with revenue authorities vide order dtd. 23/6/1997 got the mutation order dtd. 25/10/1992 cancelled which came to the knowledge of plaintiff on 31/7/2007. It was pleaded that defendant in connivance with revenue authorities got his name registered in the revenue record and is threatening the plaintiff to take over possession of the suit land, therefore, defendant be restrained from interfering peaceful possession of the plaintiff, declaration of sole ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land be granted.

(3.) Appellant/defendant in his written statement denying the averments made in plaint, pleaded that it is not clearly stated by the plaintiff as to from whom he purchased the suit property. The description of the land stated to be purchased by the plaintiff is completely fabricated and fake and is not binding on the defendant. Defendant No.1 has no objection on kh. No. 730, area 0.36, which has now been changed. Remaining land bearing kh. No. 842/1 and 843 are in possession of defendant. Plaintiff has wrongly stated that he is in possession. Pleading made in the plaint that original registry paper was lost by the Patwari of the area at the time of mutation is completely fabricated, otherwise there would have been complete details as to which Patwari lost registry papers and what action did the plaintiff take against the Patwari. It is also not clearly mentioned as to when the plaintiff received certified copy of the sale deed. It is specifically denied that after buying the disputed lands, plaintiff acquired title and possession. Pleading that plaintiff got his name mutated on 25/10/1992 is misleading. In fact, plaintiff in connivance with the Revenue Inspector got his name mutated on 25/10/1992 secretly. After getting knowledge of this fact, defendant filed an appeal against the said order in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Sakti through Revenue Appeal No. 13 A/6 of 1996-97 (Balram Singh vs Satyanarayan), in which the plaintiff appeared and taken his defence. After hearing the arguments, Sub-Divisional Officer Sakti had set aside the said order. Accordingly, the disputed land is currently registered in the revenue record in the name of defendant and he is in possession of the land. It is also wrong that as per the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Sakti, Additional Tahsildar Baradwar has passed an illegal order. Defendants denied the pleading in plaint that plaintiff got the knowledge of order of SDO only on 31/7/2007, stating that service of information is not specifically pleaded. Order dtd. 23/6/1997 is passed after hearing both the parties. The plaintiff was well aware of the fact that defendant is resident of Durg. Since the disputed land is in the possession of defendant No. 1, in such a situation, the plaintiff is not entitle to get any relief of permanent injunction. In his special/additional pleading he averred that plaintiff received the compensation amount against acquisition of the disputed land from the government illegally, complaint of which has been made by defendant No.1. Plaintiff was aware of the order of SDO dtd. 23/6/1997. Plaintiff's claim itself is barred by limitation. Plaintiff has not stated anywhere in the claim that the claim was presented within the limitation, probably for the reason that his claim itself is barred by limitation.