SHYAM LAL Vs. VIJAY SINGH ALIAS BIJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST revised. Heard Sri Sharad malaviya on behalf of appellants. No one appears for the respondents.

(2.) THE only substantial question of law raised in this appeal is whether suit of plaintiffs/appellants for permanent injunction in respect of plot No. 970 which was decreed by the trial Court could have been dismissed merely on the ground that plaintiffs appellants have not mentioned the boundaries of the plot, even though the said plot of land was duly demarcated by the Revenue Authorities by order dated 31st January, 1969 and was identifiable on the spot.

(3.) THE plaintiff-appellants brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from encroaching upon their bhoomidari Plot No. 970 situated at Mauza Dev Khera Pergana Etmadpur District Agra. According to them, the said plot was duly demarcated by the Revenue Authorities on 31st January, 1969 and aforesaid demarcation was confirmed by the s. D. O. , Etmadpur on 30th May, 1969. The suit was contested only by the defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant-respondent No. 4 had expired during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the only contesting parties were defendants-respondents nos. 1 to 3. The trial Court, vide Judgment and order dated 15-9-1975, decreed the suit and restrained the defendants-respondents from interfering with the plaintiffs-appellants possession over the said plot as per the Thiabandi (demarcation) dated 31-1-1969. It was held that the said plot is identifiable and there is no vagueness in the description of the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of decree of the Trial Court, contesting defendants-respondents preferred Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1975. The appellant Court allowed the appeal vide Judgment and order dated 18-4-1977 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants on the ground that plaintiffs-appellants have failed to mention the boundaries of the plot and as such, the plot was not identifiable in the absence of a survey commission. Further reasoning was given that demarcation done by the Revenue Authorities is not binding upon the Civil Court.