RESHAM LAL ALIAS BADRI PRASAD Vs. GOSAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs, the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti in Civil Appeal No. 24-A of 1998 is under challenge whereby the appeal was dismissed while affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 116-A of 95 by Civil Judge Class-II, Sakti, whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit land was dismissed.

(2.) THE appellants/plaintiffs had pleaded that they had purchased land Kh. No. 433/1 area 0.28 acres (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land) situated in village Sakrali, Tahsil Dabhra, from one Sonsai vide registered sale deed 19.01.1967 for a consideration of Rs.300/- and had obtained possession thereof. THE name of the appellants/plaintiffs was entered as owners of the suit land in Sansodhan Panji No. 650 on 14.09.1968. In 1994, the appellants/plaintiffs learnt that after death of Sonsai the respondents/defendants had got their name mutated over the suit land. THE application for mutation filed by the plaintiffs was rejected by the Revenue Court on 30.06.95. THE respondents/defendants had unauthorisedly cut the crops of the suit land. On these premises, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of the title, permanent injunction and mesne profits and in the alternative prayed for the relief of possession if it was held that they were not in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge recorded a finding that the original sale deed Ex.P.3 produced by the plaintiffs was torn and did not show the Khasra Number or area of the suit land, which was purchased by the plaintiffs from Sonsai and was therefore not proved. It was also held that Sonsai was continuously in possession of the suit land and after his death the defendants were in continuous possession thereof as recorded in the revenue records. Thus, since the plaintiffs had failed to prove title over the suit land, they were not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.