LAWS(MPH)-2002-3-49

RAMAVTAR S O KEDARNATH GUPTA Vs. RAMGOPAL

Decided On March 11, 2002
RAMAVTAR KEDARNATH GUPTA Appellant
V/S
RAMGOPAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration of title and possession after removal of construction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Appellant had claimed that he had purchased his house with an yard in village Uchehara by registered sale-deed dated 7-7-76 from one Rammilan son of Ayodhya Prasad Gupta and had obtained possession thereof. It was claimed that towards north of this house a mud wall 22 long and 11" in width existed which was in his possession since purchase. It was claimed that the respondent has his house towards north of such house of appellant and on 25-8-85 the respondent demolished this mud wall and constructed a new wall which is 22' in length and 11" in width of 8' 6" height. It was claimed that the respondent further encroached on 7' x 2' x 6" land by constructing a wall. All per plaint, the respondent has encroached on 12-1/3 sq. ft. 17-1/2 sq. ft. of land. Despite report to the police on 25-8-85 and interference of the elders of the village the respondent did not desist hence the Civil Suit for declaration and possession.

(3.) . The respondent had contested the civil suit. According to him, a dispute had arisen between the parties in year 1978. By mutual agreement arbitrators were appointed who gave their award on 5-8-78. Such award was signed by the appellant and his mother also. One of the arbitrators, Rantideo Singh had applied for making such award a rule of Court but on assurance of the appellant that he would comply with such award even otherwise, suit was withdrawn, Collector, Satna had passed an order on basis of such award dated 28-4-79. The Collector, Satna had visited the spot and inspected on 28-5-85. The appellant had not objected before Collector, Satna, However, afterwards the appellant has moved the Board of Revenue in revision against the order of Collector dated 28-5-85. As per respondent, the appellant has not only not complied with such award but has been attempting to grab more land unauthorisedly.