KAMAL SINGH Vs. ROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal has been filed by. appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29-6-2011 passed by learned District Judge, Guna, in Civil Appeal No. 100-A/2000 confirming the judgment dated 13-9-2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 121-A/98 by learned Second Civil Judge, Class I, Guna. Learned Trial Judge has allowed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by respondent/plaintiff Roop Singh by declaring him owner and possessor of suit land Survey No. 2/2 area 12 bigha, i.e., 2.613 hectares, and also granting permanent injunction not to interfere in the suit land.

(2.) This Court has framed the following substantial questions of law by order dated 20-8-2001 :

(3.) All the substantial questions of law are dealt with simultaneously because they depend on common fact whether in the absence of agreed map, the dispute between the parties should have been resolved by issuing commission. This so because another Suit No. 120-A/98 has been filed by appellant Kamal Singh against respondent Roop Singh for declaration and injunction of this suit land Survey No. 120-A/98 has been filed by appellant Kamal Singh against respondent Roop Singh for declaration and injunction of this suit land Survey No. 2/5/2 area 0.983 hectare of Village Renjhai of Tehsil and District Guna. Both the lands are situated in neighbourhood and they seems to be dispute of boundary between both the parties. The dispute between both the parties started after demarcation of boundary on 9-6-1994, in which it has been found that whole land of Survey No. 2/2 disputed land belongs to plaintiffs. Learned Trial Court held that defendants encroached 0.209 (one bigha) hectare land of Survey No. 2/2 of 1-7-1999, which shown as A, B, C in the map. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that looking to the dispute of boundaries, the commission should have been issued to demarcate the boundaries of lands of both plaintiff/defendant.