RAM NARESH @ YADURAJ Vs. RAM DULARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned counsel of the appellants and Sri Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction. The plaint case is that plaintiffs are owner in possession of plot no. 494 area 0.283 Hectare, Mauja Laudhia, Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot including two trees, namely one Mango tree and one 'Mahuwa' tree standing on the same.

(3.) Further plaint averment is that adjacent to plot no. 494 there is another plot No. 495 which is recored as 'Nala in the record. However, on the spot there is no 'Nala'(drain) rather it is a levelled land. On the said land two trees of 'Mahuwa' were planted by their ancestors which are being used by plaintiffs for a long time. On 16.11.2005 defendants came to the plot no. 494 with an intention to cut the wood from mango tree. They also threatened the plaintiffs that they will take possession of the said plot 494. The relief in the plaint is that defendants no. 1 & 2 be restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs over the disputed land and trees standing thereon. The plaint map shows the position of plot no. 494 and 495. Defendants' case was that though plaintiffs got possession of plot no. 494 through the sale deed executed by one Natthu Harijan who in turn purchased it from its original tenure holder i.e. Gajadhar son of Bihari, however, trees were never sold to him. Old number of plot no. 494 is 301 and 302 and during Chakbandi plot no. 494 was created by including two plots, namely, 301 and 302. He further submits that plaintiffs were never owner in possession of trees existing over the plot no. 494. The sale deed executed by Natthu Hrijan in favour of the plaintiffs was not for the standing trees over the plot no. 494. In fact the defendants are owner in possession of two trees standing on the old plot no. 301 of new plot no. 494. In so far as trees standing on 495 is concerned, nothing has been stated by the defendants. However, it was submitted in paragraph 28 of the written statement that the plaintiffs are not in possession of disputed trees.