PARMA CHAUHAN AND ORS. Vs. LUXMINA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission of second appeal and perused the record.

(2.) In OS No. 1266/2010, Parma Chauhan and others v. Luxmina and others the case of plaintiffs was that they are co-bhumidhar of disputed agricultural property and are in its possession, but defendant 2nd set (defendant no. 2 & 3) had surreptitiously got their name entered on said land in revenue records and executed the registered sale-deed dated 13-10-2007 in favour of defendant 1st set (defendant no. 1, Luxmina). Therefore, plaintiffs had filed suit for declaring them owner and bhumidhar of disputed agricultural land and for restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession of disputed property, or in any case for recovery of possession of disputed land from defendants; and also for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 13.7.2010 executed by defendants 2nd set in favour of defendant 1st set. The relief sought in plaint is quoted as under: <JUDIMG>588251-1</JUDIMG>

(3.) The trial court had accepted the written statement of defendants, framed issues, accepted the evidence adduced by them and thereafter Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No.-13, Azamgarh had passed judgment dated 27.11.2013 by which dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with cost. In this judgment the trial court held that sale-deed of disputed property had been executed in favour of defendant no.-1 by the defendants no. 2 and 3 who were Bhumidhar with transferable rights; and the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case.