RAJESH GUPTA Vs. RAMRAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 23/1/1999 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1999.

(2.) THE appellants have been restrained from making constructions or interfering with the possession of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 over the land in dispute. It may be made clear at the outset that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 arc the plaintiffs, and there are other defendants besides both the appellants-defendants in the suit, but they have not been made parties to this appeal as no relief was claimed against the rest of the defendants, in this appeal.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the daughters of Ram Swayambar Mishra, who was the owner of southern portion of land bearing Khasra No. 1567, area 2. 16 acres and Khasra No. 1586, area 0. 65 acres, situate at village Lalgaon, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that after death of their father Ram Swayambar Mishra, they succeeded to his property alongwilh their brother Shiv Prasad Mishra, who was arrayed as defendant No. 3 in the suit. It was staled in the plaint, inter alia, that the aforesaid properly was being cultivated by the defendant No. 3, Shiv Prasad Mishra for and on their behalf. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 staled that on or about 28-12-98 the respondent No. 1 alongwith her husband saw that Kashi Nath Gupta, the father of the appellants, was getting the land measured near Khasra No. 1586. Thereupon, they came to know that Kashi Nath Gupta appears to have purchased the land for the appellants by a registered sale-deed from the defendant No. 3. Thereafter, they obtained the certified copy of registered sale-deed dated 26-8-97, apparently, executed by the defendant No. 3 in respect of 4400 sq. ft. of land cut of Khasra No. 1587, in favour of the appellants. On questioning him, the defendant No. 3 stated that he had not sold the land contiguous to the road. It was also stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 3 sold them that his signatures on the sale-deed were obtained after deceiving him. It was also stated by him that the consideration was less than what should have been given to him. The location of the plot was also changed. However, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 claimed that they being owners of the suit-property, the appellants have no right or title to the suit-land. It was also asserted in Paragraph 6 of the plaint that the appellants are likely to take forcible possession of the suit-land described in Paragraph 3 of the plaint and they will make constructions of the suit-property. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. So far as the declaration was concerned, it was claimed that the sale-deed dated 26-8-97 was not binding on the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as they were owners of southern portion of land, Khasra Nos. 1586 and 1587.