SUMRATI Vs. MULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant second appeal has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 28. 9. 2007 passed by Addl. District Judge Court no. 15 Meerut in Smt. Sumrati and others v. Mule and others, Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995. By the impugned judgment and decree learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants.

(2.) PERUSAL of the judgment of the Courts below shows that Mangloo deceased filed Original Suit No. 168/1988 in the Court of Munsif Mavana, Meerut for injunction and for recovery of possession from the defendants of the property in dispute. It has been alleged in the plaint that the property in dispute belonged earlier to his father Surja and after the death of father Surja the plaintiff inherited the property a house existing on the property in dispute. Afterwards the house collapsed and now the plaintiffs appellant wanted to reconstruct the house. The defendants have no concerned and connection from the property in dispute. But the defendant wants to occupy the property in dispute illegally and forceably. That the defendants also constructed a house over the property in dispute. A forged and fraudulent sale deed was also prepared in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 executed by defendant No. 5 Smt. Atro. The defendant respondent contested the suit and filed written statement denied the allegation of the plaint. It has further been alleged that the father of defendant no. 5, namely, Sukhi was the owner in possession of the property in dispute and he died 10 years earlier. After the death of Sukhi his only daughter defendant No. 5 inherited the property. In the rainy season the mud house collapsed and the plaintiff proposed to purchase the disputed house in consideration of Rs. 1500/- from the defendant No. 5. That the defendant did not agree to this proposal. Plaintiff created circumstances so that any other person may not purchase the house. Being compelled defendant No. 5 executed the sale deed of the disputed house in favour of defendant No. 1 in consideration of Rs. 2400/ -. That the defendant No. 1 had constructed the house over the property in dispute and the present suit has been filed due to mala fide intention. Learned munsif Mavana, Meerut framed five issues for disposal of the suit and both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contention. After considering the entire evidence of the parties learned Munsif dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant with costs. On being aggrieved from the judgment of the Trial Court the plaintiff instituted Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995 and this civil appeal was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28. 9. 2007 and afterwards the instant second appeal has been instituted.

(3.) I have heard Sri Satish Mandhyan learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the entire material on record.