GANGADHAR PATEL Vs. BHOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals preferred by the defendants/appellants were admitted for hearing by formulating the following common substantial questions of law:? "1. Whether the findings of the first appellate Court that from the revenue record of Ex.D/7, it is established that Damrudhar and after his death plaintiff Ramela Bai was in possession of the suit land as owner, is perverse and contrary to the entries of document of Ex.D/7 wherein the name of Usatram etc. and his father Ramsingh is also entered in possession column

(2.) Whether in view of the document of Ex.D/1 which was exhibited by Damru Rawat through whom the plaintiffs are claiming title and by which he has surrendered his right over the property in favour of Trilochan Gouitya, who subsequently transferred the same to Chandan Singh Bihari by the deed of Ex.D/2 through whom the defendants are claiming title, the findings of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have established their title over the suit property is legally justified" [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court]. 2. The suit property was originally held by Damrudhar Rawat. Deceased?original plaintiff was her wife. She filed a bare suit for permanent injunction stating inter?alia that earlier her husband was in possession of the suit land and after his death, she is in possession of the suit land, to which the defendants disputed her possession and tried to dispossess her necessitated the filing the suit that she is entitled for permanent injunction over the suit land by restraining the defendants.

(3.) The defendants set?up the plea that the suit property belonged to Damrudhar and Damarudhar has relinquished his share in the suit property vide Ex.D?1 on 28.5.43 in favour of Trilochan Goutiya and vide Ex.D?2 Trilochan Goutiya has transferred the same in favour of Charan Singh on 28.5.43, from whom defendants No.1 to 4 have purchased the suit land on 28.5.50 vide Ex.D?3 and since then they are in possession of the suit land and as such, the plaintiff has no right and title over the suit land.