AMUL SARDAR Vs. SANAKA BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.2.2001 in A.S. No.1 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No.3 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur.

(2.) The appellant is the defendant who lost in both the Courts below. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff filed O.S. No.3 of 1995 seeking a declaration that she is the owner of the suit schedule land and for recovery of possession of the same. She also sought a mandatory injunction by directing the defendant/appellant to fill up the pit of the well which is dug in the suit land and for removal of the structure of a house raised in the suit land. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge as prayed for. The appeal, A.S. No.l of 1998 preferred by the defendant was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court. Hence the second appeal by the defendant. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant throughout this judgment for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments in O.S. No.3 of 1995 is that she is a refugee and was rehabilitated by the Government long back along with her two minor sons and she was assigned the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.1-50 cents situated in Survey No. 17/87/1 at Nazrulnagar, Kagaznagar Mandal, Adilabad District for the livelihood of her family. Out of the said Ac.1.50 cents the plaintiff developed one acre and has been raising paddy crop till the year 1993. Though the remaining Ac.0.50 cents was kept fallow, the entire land was under her possession and enjoyment. While so, in the month of May, 1994, she left for Jabalpur, where her son was staying. She fell sick and she could return to Nazrulnagar after a long gap. By that time the defendant illegally occupied the suit schedule land and also constructed a Mangalore tiled house and he also started digging a pit for construction of a well in the month of January, 1995. In spite of best efforts made with the help of village elders, the plaintiff could not recover the vacant possession of the suit schedule land from the defendant. Hence the suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.