DEVENDRA KUMAR @ CHIPPA Vs. BHAVANI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4/4/2017 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Vidisha in RCA No.32/2015, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 12/3/2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.68A/2013.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that a suit was filed by the appellant for permanent injunction against defendants no.1 to 3 for restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that he is the resident of village Devkhajuri, Tahsil and District Vidisha and the defendants no.1 to 3 are also the resident of the same village, whereas the defendant no.4 was the formal party to the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner and in possession of survey no.306/2/2 admeasuring 0.267 hectare and survey no.287 admeasuring 0.146 hectare situated in village Devkhajuri, Tahsil and District Vidisha. The said land was given by the Government on Patta to his father and after the death of his father and mother, he succeeded the entire land and his name has also been mutated in the revenue records. It is further pleaded that the defendants no.1 to 3 are bent upon to encroach the land belonging to the appellant. It was further claimed that the cause of action arose on 29/11/2012 when the defendants no.1 to 3 tried to dispossess the plaintiff and tried to encroach upon his property and when he objected to it, then the defendants no.1 to 3 started quarreling with him and somehow the plaintiff managed to stop them from achieving their ulterior motives. Accordingly, the civil suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants no.1 to 3 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was denied that survey no.306/2/2 area 0.267 hectare and survey no.287 area 0.146 hectare belong to the appellant. It was claimed that in fact the said land has been recorded in the name of Chippa, a lessee. However, it was claimed that the said land is in possession of defendant no.1. It was further claimed that the plaintiff has already sold survey no.306/2/2 to one Pratapbhanu Raghuvanshi and now even otherwise, the plaintiff has no right or title over the said land. It was further denied that the defendants had ever tried to take forcible possession of survey no.287 area 0.146 hectare.