JAGDISH Vs. ACHHELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants-defendants No. 2 and 3 have filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Lakhnadon, district Seoni in Civil Regular Appeal No. 31-A/02, decreeing the suit of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 for declaration and possession against them by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.8.02 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Lakhanadon in Civil Original Suit No. 55-A/2000, whereby such suit was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that one Achhelal, predecessor in title of Respondent No. 1 (1) to 1 (3) filed the above mentioned suit against the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 and 3 for declaration and possession with respect of agricultural land bearing survey No. 0.10, 165/1, 170, 27/3, 169 and 235/1, area 0.10, 2.59, 0.19, 0.50, 0.09 and 0.39 hectares respectively, total area 3.56 hectares situated at village Gunehari, tah. Ghansour contending that in Revenue Case No. 6-A/27 of 1997-1998, the Naib Tahsildar, Ghansour, vide order dated 24.10.1998 in partition of the co-parcenary land had given such land to said Acchelal one of the co-parceners of the family. Pursuant to it the name of Achhelal was mutated as Bhumiswami separately on the abovementioned land in revenue record. While other ancestral land was given in such partition to other coparceners of the family. It is also pleaded that after such mutation, the Bhooadhikar Rin Pustika, Part-I and Part-II with the signatures of the Tahsildar were also given to Achhelal. Since then he became the sole Bhoomiswami of it. As per further averments said Achhelal being heart patient in connection of his treatment was residing at Jabalpur with his son and due to such reason in the year 1994 he gave his land for cultivation to the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 for four years. On expiry of such period, inspite of making the demand by Achhelal and Respondent No. 1. (2) his son, from Appellants and Respondent No. 2, the possession of such land was not given to them, on which Achhelal-plaintiff filed the impugned suit for declaration and possession of the aforesaid land.

(3.) The Respondent No. 2 and 3 namely Govind and the State of M.P. proceeded exparte in the trial court.