RAMPYARE Vs. KAMLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendant No. 2 under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 28th of July, 1992 passed by 32-A/88 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1988, passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Ajaygarh, District Panna, in Civil Suit No. 13-A/86.

(2.) THE respondent no. 1, who was the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, had filed the suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit-land measuring 11 acres out of total area of 26.99 acres of land which was a part of Khasra no. 719, situate at village Pishta, Tahsil Ajaygarh, District Panna. It was alleged in the plaint by the respondent no. 1 that the suit-land was jointly recorded in the name of the appellant and the respondents no. 2 to 9 as well as the defendant no. 1 Ramratan, whose name was struck off from the record on account of the fact that he died during the pendency of the first appeal. It was alleged in the plaint that the aforesaid 11 acres of land was transferred in the name of the respondent no. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- by an unregistered sale-deed dated 30.10.1970. The respondent no. 1 assorted in the plaint that he was placed in possession of the suit-land on 30.10.1970 itself. Thereafter, he continued to be in peaceful possession of the suit-land as the owner thereof till the date of the filing of the suit, i.e., 11.4.1986. Thus, by hostile and open possession in the suit-land, he acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly, he claimed declaration of his title and permanent injunction.

(3.) THE trial Court found that it has not been proved that the suit-land was sold on 30.10.1970 for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/-. The trial Court further found that the respondent no. 1 did not perfect his title by adverse possession. It was also found by the trial Court that three of the co-owners, namely, Ramratan, Rampyare and Ramlagan, could not sell the suit-property which was jointly recorded in the name of other co-owners also. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit.