PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. SARADI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants, wherein, they have questioned the judgment and decree, which has been concurrently rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Rudraprayag in Civil Case No. 65 of 2014 'Smt. Saradi Devi and another vs. Jethu Lal'. On a challenge being given to the said judgment, the same stood affirmed by the Appellate Court by the judgment dtd. 8/3/2019, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2018 'Pradeep Kumar and Others vs. Smt. Saradi Devi and Another' by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rudraprayag.

(2.) Before venturing into the controversy in question, briefly put the case of the plaintiff before the court below was that the plaintiff claimed herself to be an exclusive owner of the property described as to be Khasra No. 1505, whereas, in accordance with the plaint allegations, she has submitted that in Khata No. 00027, wherein, she has been recorded as a Bhumidhar, the defendant as per the khatoni entries of Khata No. 00027 is shown to have purchased Khasra No. 1507 having a total area of 10 muthis of land from one Mr. Darshanu, S/o Mr. Thepdu.

(3.) As per the pleadings, which has been raised in the plaint, it was contended by the plaintiffs/respondents that out of the total land purchased by the defendant 6 muthis of land of the defendants/appellants had already been acquired by the Public Works Department for construction of a motor road and in the remaining 4 muthis of land, which belonged to the defendant, he has constructed his residential accommodation and is residing therein. The plaintiff has instituted the Suit that though the defendant had already utilized his entire property purchased by him earlier, he is making efforts to interfere into the peaceful possession of the property lying in Khasra No. 1505, which according to the plaintiff is a property, which has fallen in her share and where there exists her residential accommodation. The cause of action which has been pleaded to have arisen for instituting of the Suit by the plaintiff was that when on 17/12/2014, the defendant along with other allies brought the bulldozer at the place in question and had tried to interfere in the Khata No. 1505, which exclusively stands recorded as per the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff.