JAMUNA PRASAD Vs. SHIVNANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-8-1994 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/91 by the First Additional District Judge, Satna affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 26-A/1984 by the First Civil Judge Class II, Satna decreeing the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the deceased respondent No. 3 (who is now represented by his legal representative) Gopal @ Ramgopal Ahir was the owner of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 54 (New Khasra No. 54/2) area 5 acres and Khasra No. 55 area 0.80 acre of Village Kakraad, Choubeypur, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna. It was alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the said land was sold by Gopal to them by a registered sale-deed dated 2-8-1967 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-and possession thereof was also handed over to them. However, subsequently, the appellants who were defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit took forcible possession of the land from the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sometime in the year 1976. It was also stated that in the meanwhile there was some dispute regarding mutation of the land which was also agitated and pursued before the Revenue Authorities by the appellant No. 4 defendant and Gopal as the appellant No. 4 Jamunia claimed half share of the property. It was alleged that as forcible possession of the land was taken over by appellant No. 1, therefore, a suit for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Trial Court.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 vendor, Gopal did not file a written statement in spite of service and was, therefore, proceeded ex parte while the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed a written statement and opposed the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 plaintiff and it was stated that the possession of the property in question had always been with the defendants but was wrongly recorded in the name of the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1967-68 in respect of which the matter was taken up before the Revenue Authorities who decided the same against the respondent No. 1 plaintiff. It was also contended that the defendants had in fact purchased part of the property from Jamunia, sister of defendant No. 1 on 18-7-1972, who was the joint owner of the property and thereafter obtained possession of the property. It was also contended that the alleged sale deed in favour of plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, dated 2-8-1967 was also void as the defendant No. 1 Gopal had no right or title to sell the same.