RAM SAJIWAN Vs. SHANTI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. This second appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 26/2/1999 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in Civil Appeal No.117-A/1991 arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 28/10/1985 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.14-A/1981, by which, the learned lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants on the pleadings, inter alia, that property in dispute originally belonged to one Lal Singh in occupancy. The plaintiff's case was that Mahadev, under various sale deeds (registered/unregistered) purchased different parcel of land held in occupancy of tenancy by defendant No.1 from time to time and came into possession of the property in dispute. These transactions of sale, according to the plaintiff, had taken place between Mahadev and Lal Singh before coming into force of M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1954. According to the plaintiff, by virtue of sale made by Lal Singh in favour of Mahadev, Mahadev became occupancy tenant of the disputed property and then acquired status of Bhumidhari and finally acquired the status of Bhoomiswami. A part of the subject land was also sold in favour of Baldev Prasad, brother of Mahadev Prasad and uncle of Radha Mohan. Further case of the plaintiff was that one of the subject land was purchased by Mahadev from Bihari Satnami by registered sale deed. The cause of action arose for the plaintiff, when on 16/6/1964, the defendant No.1 started agricultural work on the disputed lands, except land situated in Khasra No.16/1(kha), on which, house was situated. According to the plaintiffs, they having been put in possession by the defendant under sale transaction, were entitled to protect their possession, as such, the defendant No.1 is not entitled to interfere with their possession.

(3.) The defendant No.1 filed written statement, denying all the allegations and stated that he had never executed sale deed. He stated that the plaintiff's claim of sale transaction was only sham transaction and there were only loan transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant. He has also stated that the documents, if any, executed were only security towards repayment of loan. Defendants No.2 to 4 filed separate written statement and contested the case of the plaintiff and according to them, they were title holder and in possession of the disputed property. Other defendants also contested the case of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court, after framing issues, allowed the parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence and recorded a finding that by virtue of aforesaid sale deeds, though, unregistered and under various sale transactions, Mahadev and other purchasers were put in possession of the property in dispute and therefore, the plaintiff being successors in interest are entitled to retain the possession. On these findings, decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff.