NATHU Vs. KASHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction on the ground that he is the owner and in possession of agricultural land i.e., Survey No.335 Min area 2.150 hectares out of 3.161 hectares (Would be referred as Disputed Property). On the Eastern side of Disputed Property, the property of Komal Singh is situated, on Western Side, the remaining part of Disputed property, on Norther side, the property of Amra Chowikdar and on Southern side, there is a public way. It was pleaded that the defendants are the legal heirs of Gulab whose name is recorded in the revenue records. However, it was pleaded that neither Gulab nor the defendants were ever in possession of the Disputed Property. Sugara Begum had given the Disputed Property to Gulab for a period of one year for agricultural purposes. However, the name of Gulab is wrongly mentioned in the revenue records. It was prayed that the defendants no.1 to 8 are trying to take possession of the Disputed Property.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement and denied that the plaintiffs are the owner and in possession of the Disputed Property. It was also denied that Sugara Begum had kept Gulab as her servant. All other plaint averments were denied.