NIRANJAN SARDAR Vs. RAVINDRA NATH SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal, was preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants, challenging the impugned judgment dtd. 3/8/2012, as was passed by the Court of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was rendered in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2011, Niranj an Sardar and another Vs. Ravindra Nath Sardar and others, whereby the Appeal, which had been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants, was dismissed and as a consequence thereto, it had resulted into an affirmation of the judgement and decree dtd. 21/2/2011, which was passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudrapur, in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009, Niranjan Sardar and another Vs. Ravindranath and others, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed.

(2.) The fact, as emerging for consideration, from the said suit, which was instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants were that, they had contended that they are the brothers and cousin brothers of the defendants/respondents to the suit and on account of a wrongful interference which was being made by them, over the property in question, they had instituted a suit for the grant of a decree of permanent injunction in relation to the property, which was the subject matter of the suit, lying in khata khatauni No.328, khasra No. 558, having an area of 1.606 hectares, out of which the land having an area of 0.404 hectares, was settled with them under the family settlement of 25/9/1995, which the plaintiffs/appellants contended that the disputed land had fallen in his share in accordance with the family settlement, which had been arrived at between them on 25/9/1995.

(3.) The defendants/respondents before the trial Court had filed their written statement admitted the fact of the family settlement and had also admitted the fact that the said family partition, was placed on record before the Court below, but they have contended that since their names have been recorded in the revenue records, over the aforesaid disputed land and hence they denied the fact of there being a family partition, having been taken between them, they admitted recording to their names on the basis of family settlement.