DEV PRAKASH GULATI Vs. NAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009 passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 128-A/2009 by the X Additional District Judge, Bhopal, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009 passed in Civil Suit No.300-A/2005 by the XII Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal has been affirmed.

(2.) THE appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction alleging that the lands bearing Khasra No.250/1/2, 250/1/3 and 250/1/4 of village Bishankhedi, Patwari Circle No.34, Tahsil Hujur, District Bhopal was purchased by them from Shivcharan, Badami Lal and Phool Singh, who have executed sale-deed in their favour on 22.08.1995. It was contended that the aforesaid persons were title holder of the land as they have inherited the said land from their father Khushilal. After the purchase, the land was recorded in the names of the appellants/plaintiffs and they were put in possession of the land. However, an objection was raised by the legal heir of late Padam Singh and since the revenue courts ordered for mutation of the name of legal heir of Padam Singh, which order was affirmed up to the Board of Revenue, therefore, a dispute was raised and for declaration of title, permanent injunction and restraining the respondent No. 1/defendant to interfere in possession of the appellants over the suit land, the suit was required to be filed.

(3.) THE Trial Court specifically considered the fact that the appellants have not been able to establish that they have purchased the land under the sale-deed from a person, who was having title to transfer such land to the appellants. THE Trial Court categorically considered this aspect in paragraph 14 and 15. THE Trial Court further considered the statement of other witnesses of the appellants/plaintiffs and in view of the specific admission made by such witnesses, as have been referred in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment of the Trial Court, reached to the conclusion that in fact there was no material available to hold that the appellants have purchased the land from a person, who was having title to transfer the land. Only because the revenue entries were produced before the Trial Court that too from the year 1977, and such entries were corrected by subsequent orders which had attained the finality, the Trial Court rightly reached to the conclusion that in view of the law laid- down by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. vs. Amar Singh & others, (1997) 1 SCC 734 and further in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in case of Durga Das vs. Collector & others, (1996) 5 SCC 618, no title was transferred to the appellants on the basis of sale-deed, executed in respect of the suit property as the predecessor in title of the appellants/plaintiffs were having no title to transfer the land to the appellants/plaintiffs. However, the Trial Court did not examine the fact with respect to the filing of suit within limitation but holding that appellants have failed to prove their claim, dismissed the suit.