SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. RAMKHILAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by the Defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli in Civil Appeal No.04-A/2000 by which, the lower appellate Court, while reversing the finding of the trial Court dated 19.01.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.44-A/1997, has decreed the Plaintiff's claim.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming possession and damages to the tune of Rs.1,240/- by submitting inter alia that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 19.06.1965, the Plaintiff's sons namely Raj Kumar and Vijay Kumar purchased the suit property bearing Khasra No.427/8 admeasuaring 0.87 acres, the part of Khasra No.427/1 from Dwarika Prasad, Ambika Prasad and Chandrika Prasad. It is pleaded in the Plaint that after purchasing the property as such, an application was made for mutation which was objected by the said vendors and obtained the possession forcefully in the year 1968. Therefore, the suit for possession was filed by Plaintiff Ramkhilawan against them, which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.1978 in Civil Suit No.69-A/1976 and the Possession was accordingly delivered to him on 09.10.1978. It is pleaded further that the revenue papers were mutated in his sons' names vide order dated 20.02.1985. However, the said order has been reversed on 30.06.1986 by mentioning the name of Defendant No.1 upon deleting the names of Plaintiff's sons even without prior notice to them. It is pleaded further that after obtaining the revenue papers as such, Defendant No.1, in the year 1987, has dispossessed the Plaintiff illegally giving rise to a suit in the instant nature, instituted on 14.05.1997. The Defendant has not filed any written statement and was proceeded ex parte.

(3.) After considering the evidence led by the Plaintiff, the trial Court has dismissed the suit by holding inter alia that the order as passed on 30.06.1986 has not been questioned by the Plaintiff and has failed to establish the fact that the suit property bearing Khasra No.427/8 admeasuring 0.87 acres is a part of Khasra No.427/1 and observed further that the Plaintiff, while instituting the suit, has failed to produce the demarcation report. As such, he is not entitled to relief of possession and damages as claimed by him. The suit was accordingly dismissed.