SHALIG RAM Vs. ANANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants - Defendant Nos. 1, 3 (a) and 3 (d) have directed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15th October 1992 passed by Additional Judge to District Judge Panna in Civil Regular Appeal No. 50-A/92 dismissing their appeal by affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1991 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Panna in Civil Original Suit No. 202/84, decreeing the suit of the Respondent No. 1 for perpetual injunction against the Appellant No. 1 and late Gaya Prasad (Principal Defendant No. 3) the predecessor in interest of the Appellant No. 2, 3 and Respondent No. 2 (a) 2 (d) and 3.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that Respondent No. 1 Anantram filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the Appellant No. 1 - Shalig Ram and the Gaya Prasad, (the principal Defendant No. 3) by impleading the State of M.P. as formal party with respect of the revenue paid land bearing survey No. 2067/1 situated in village Dwari, tahsil and district Panna with a prayer restraining the applicant No. 1 and said Gaya Prasad from any interference in his title and possession of such land. As per further averments of the plaint, the Defendant/respondent No. 1, being in possession of such land since last fifty years has been cultivating the same. During this period in the year 1953-1954, a well was also dug by him towards the southern side of this land. Besides this some trees of lemon and guava were also planted by him. The same are in existence on such land. The Appellant No. 1 and said Gaya Prasad being the agriculturist of adjoining land bearing survey No. 2066, on dated 21.9.1984 accompanied with some of their relatives entered in the field of the Respondent No. 1 and after giving him the beating had snatched his agricultural implements. After reporting such incident to Police, Amanganj to protect the possession of the land, Respondent No. 1 filed the impugned suit for perpetual injunction.

(3.) On the other hand on behalf of the Appellant No. 1 and said Gaya Prasad their separate identical written statements were filed in which by disputing the averments of the plaint, in addition, it is stated that the disputed land on which the alleged well and trees are situated, being part of their land of survey No. 2066, they are in possession of the same and the Respondent No. 1 - Plaintiff did not have any title or possession over the same. By denying the allegation of beating, it is stated that they were beaten by the Respondent No. 1, on which they reported the matter to the Police. It is also stated that the sign of demarcation made and fixed by the Revenue Inspector had been removed by the Respondent No. 1 and thereafter on wrong pretext, he is claiming the disputed land to be a part of his land bearing survey No. 2067/1. While infact such land being part of above mentioned survey No. 2066, they are in possession of the same as Bhumiswami. Some averments regarding map of the settlement of Samvat 2012 are also stated by them. As per further averments under the garb of the impugned suit, the Respondent No. 1 is trying to take possession of their land forcefully. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.