PRAKASH Vs. GOPAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A civil suit No. 197-A/2001 filed by the appellant before the Civil Judge Class-I Sausar, District Chhindwara for declaration and injunction relating to the suit property was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2006. Vide order dated 17.5.2007, the learned District Jude, Chhindwara remanded the matter for limited purposes and thereafter, the Civil Judge again by impugned judgment and decree dated 20.8.2007 dismissed the suit. In Civil Appeal No. 32- A/2009, the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Chhindwara vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.2009 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the appellant/ plaintiff have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant/ plaintiffs have preferred a civil suit before the Trial Court that the plaintiffs were the owner of the land bearing survey No. 186/6 area 0.05 acres and having new survey No. 376 area 0.02 acres situated at village Borgan, Tahsil Sausar, District Chhindwara, through their ancestor Namdeo S/o Khushal, who purchased the suit property from one Devrao Bobde. Two rooms were constructed on the plot, whereas remaining land was lying vacant. It was also pleaded that two rooms were given to Anjana Bai wife of Jago Chipde by way of licence. After death of Anjana Bai, the defendant No. 2 Rambhau had encroached that house. The plaintiffs have also submitted a map of the property and prayed for possession and perpetual injunction against the respondent No. 2.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge, Class-I after framing the various issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing them, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs could not show their ownership of the property in dispute. Learned District Judge, Chhindwara remanded the matter to prove the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs by allowing the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. Again, the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.2007 and the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.