VIJAY PAL Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Dinesh Rai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellants have preferred the present second appeal challenging the judgement and decree dated 2.11.2020 passed by the appellate court setting aside the judgement dated 24.9.2016 passed by the trial court decreeing the original suit No. 217 of 2007 (Vijay Pal and others vs. Rajendra Kumar).

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellants instituted original suit No. 217 of 2007 praying for a decree of mandatory injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from peaceful interference in his possession over plot No. 387 area 0.265 hectare situated in Village Aurangabad Ahir Pargana Agauta, Tehsil & District Bulandshahr. The plaint case was that Buddhi Singh was the owner of the plot No. 387 area 2 bigha 10 biswa situated in Village Aurangabad Ahir Pargana Agauta, Tehsil & District Bulandshahr. One Ajeet Singh and Virendra Singh son of Risal Singh, Buddhi Singh son of Jagat Singh and Jal Singh son of Meer Singh are the descendants of zamindar Fatah Chandra. They had instituted original suit No. 262 of 1991 praying for decree of declaration that they are the owner and in possession over plot No. 387 (hereinafter referred to as 'property in question). Besides above, Ajeet Singh and another instituted another suit praying that their names be recorded in the records in respect of property in question based on decreed dated 7.9.1993. The plaintiff-appellants claim that they and Ajeet Singh belong to one family but Ajeet Singh without informing the plaintiff-appellants got the aforesaid two suits decreed whereas the plaintiff-appellants are also the owner and in possession of the property in question. It is also pleaded that the name of the defendant-respondent has been fraudulently recorded in the records. The defendant-respondent being influential persons are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellant which gave rise to the cause of action for filing the present suit.