GIRDHARI PAWAR Vs. SAWITRI BAI BARKADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was plaintiff before the Trial Court and he had filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction in respect of khasra Nos.7, 9 and 10 having area of 0.32, 0.06 and 11.21 acres measuring total 4.690 hectares in Village Khajri, Patwari halka No.95, Chhindwara.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in short is that he is owner of aforesaid khasra numbers measuring 4.690 hectares. The adjoining plot to appellant plaintiff's plot is of defendant No.1 namely Savitri Bai. It was averred by him that he is in peaceful possession of land since last 46 years, but defendant No.1 Savitri Bai is unnecessarily creating dispute in respect of suit property and wants to forcefully dispossess the appellant from the suit land. On 17.07.2014, Savitri Bai defendant No.1 tilled the agriculture field of the appellant and when he reached on the spot she told him that she will forcefully occupy the land in question. Many persons came there, intervened and thereafter defendant No.1 was stopped from sowing the field belonging to the petitioner and went away after threatening him. Later on plaintiff got his land demarcated on 25.03.2012 and at the time of demarcation defendant No.1 Savitri Bai abused and assaulted the officials and created ruckus. He filed a report of the incident to Police on 27.03.2012. As defendant No.1 is repeatedly making efforts to make forceful possession on the land of the appellant, therefore, he filed the civil suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants.

(3.) Defendants/respondents has opposed the prayer of plaintiff and they have stated in their written statement that they are owners of khasra No.8/2 measuring 4.424 hectare and khasra No.501 measuring 0.117 hectare. Plaintiff had encroached over the land of the defendant by shifting the boundaries of the field. He had constructed a road on Khasra No.7 and further he had encroached upon khasra No.8/2, therefore, the total area of the defendants' field has been reduced. Defendants many time asked the plaintiff for demarcation but he did not agree for demarcation. The mother- in-law of plaintiff Roopvati Bai filed an application for demarcation of land on 29.05.2012 and on demarcation Patwari and Revenue Inspector found that plaintiff is in possession of part of defendant number one's land and such land is included in khasra Nos.9 and 10. Plaintiff intentionally did not appear in this demarcation. After the said demarcation plaintiff is having enmity with the defendants. Defendant No.1 stated that they have neither encroached upon any land of the plaintiff nor they are making any effort to dispossess the plaintiff. It was further submitted by the respondent/defendant that as per Mishal Bandobast of year 1914-15 Sukhiya widow of Fatte Gond was said to be the owner of dispute land. However, in the year 1967-68 the said land was entered in the name of Pandhri S/o Shobhaji in the year 1984-85, the land was entered in the name of appellant. It was further submitted that Pandhri S/o Shobhaji is not the legal heir of Sukhiya widow of Fatte Gond. Pandhri is not a member of Schedule Tribe and he is illegally in possession of land belonging to Sukhiya widow of Fatte Gond and plaintiff has violated Section 170-B of M.P. Land Revenue Code and plaintiff had filed the suit with oblique and ulterior motive and same deserves to be dismissed.