BABUL ALIAS MOHAMMED HUSSAIN Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) THE civil suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on 29-10-1977 for declaration of his title over the suit land and permanent injunction in his favour against respondents/defendants. Respondent No. 1 Ramchandra was the owner of 1. 386 hectares agricultural land situated at Village Bara Patthar, Tehsil Mahidipur, bearing Khasra No. 196. The same land has been sold out by respondent No. 1 in favour of his nephew (sister's son) Radheshyam by registered sale deed on 10-5-1977 (Ex. P-11 ). The plaintiffs case was that before 22 years the suit land was purchased by him after paying consideration of Rs. 600/ -. This was the oral purchase. Thereafter, he is in continuous possession over the suit land thereby acquired title as per law of adverse possession.

(3.) THE respondents/defendants have refuted the claim of the appellant. The case of the respondent No. 1 was that he never sold land to the appellant nor the appellant is in continuous possession over the same. The learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 24-2-1981 dismissed the suit holding that the suit land was never sold by respondent No. 1 to the appellant nor he was in continuous possession for more than 12 years. It has also been held by the learned Trial Court that on 21-10-1977 the appellant and respondent No. 1 entered into a compromise and executed a document Ex. D-1 regarding some old payment for Hakai (ploughing) and rent. After elaborate discussion of oral and documentary evidence the suit was dismissed. Against which the appellant went up in first appeal and learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16-4-1982 also dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Learned Lower First Appellate Court has also considered all legal and factual grievances agitated by the appellant therein dissatisfied with this. The appellant has preferred this second appeal before this Court.