PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Vs. RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants / defendants have filed this first appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/7/2017 passed by the Dis-trict Judge, Umariya (MP) in Civil Suit No. 4-A/16, whereby the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff namely Ravi Shankar Sharma against the appellants / defendants for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction has been allowed and the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff has been decreed in his favour according to para 28 of the impugned judgment.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.2307/1ka/1ka/1ka ad-measuring 0.274 hectares situated in village Chandiya, General No.205, Patwari Halka Chandiya No.9, R.N.M. Chandiya, Tahsil Chandiya, District Umariya (MP), on the ground that he is the exclusive owner and possession holder of the land in question. The said land was purchased by him from one Tarabai by registered sale deed dtd. 25/6/2009 in total consideration of Rs.1,30,000.00and thereafter, the possession was handed over to the respondent / plaintiff and his name was also mutated in the revenue records vide Namantaran Panji No.21 dtd. 22/8/2009.

(3.) Thereafter, Tahsildar, Chandiya conducted demarcation of the land in question wherein notice was issued on 13/6/2009 and after receiving the said notice on 14/6/2009 the respondent / plaintiff appeared before the authority concerned and in his presence, demarcation was completed and final order was issued on 23/3/2010 and on the said date, for the first time, the respondent / plaintiff came to know that in the part of the land ad-measuring 0.042 hectare bearing khasra no.2307/1ka/1ka/1ka, Kailodevi Government Hospital is situated. On 2/12/2009 and 25/6/2010 registered notices were issued to the appellants / defendants by the respondent / plaintiff and the same were served to them but no proceeding was done by the appellants regarding the land in dispute and the vacant possession was also not handed over to the plaintiff.