HARICHARAN Vs. KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission.

(2.) THE appellants have preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Codeof Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 6-2-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Civil Appeal No. 31-A/97 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree dated 15-3-1997 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Janjgir in Civil Suit No. 327-A/94 whereby the suit preferred by the respondents was dismissed and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) THE plaintiffs case before the Trial Court was that the suit land earlier belonged to one Manau Ram who sold the same on 7-6-1954 to Jwala Prasad in the name of his sons. Thereafter, Jwala Prasad by way of registered sale deed, transferred the same on 13-5-1965 in the names of Shyamlal and Lallu; and Shyamlal and Lallu through the registered sale deed on 3-3-1970 transferred the suit land to the plaintiff and handed over the vacant possession. It is further averred that the land in question comprised on 58 decimal, out of which 5 decimal land was transferred to the plaintiff and Manau Ram transferred the remaining 53 decimal of land to Shyamlal and Lallu in the year 1962, who in turn sold the same to the defendants. The defendants in written statement denied the averments of the plaint and claimed that Shyamlal purchased 58 decimal of land vide registered sale deed dated 18-4-1962 and the same was purchased by him through the registered sale deed on 24-1-1974. Since then he is in possession. The allegation of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendants has been denied. On the basis of the pleading of the respective parties, issues were framed and the Trial Court dismissed the suit by recording a finding that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land and he is not entitled to recover his damages and he is also not entitled for declaratory relief of title nor he is entitled for a decree of possession and accordingly the suit was dismissed.