GYARSIBAI Vs. MEMBAI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/1998 arising out of judgment and decree dated 03.12.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 108-A/1996 by the Additional Civil Judge, Seoni.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants on the ground that the original plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 500/- from the original defendant No. 1 Bhikam Singh. In terms of the agreement, on payment of amount, the original plaintiff was put in possession of the land. By virtue of such a permissive possession, she cultivated the land and when the sale-deed was not executed, possession was not taken back from the original plaintiff. Thus, within the knowledge of the original defendant, she remained in possession of the land in suit and has, thus, perfected her title by adverse possession. Such a claim made by the appellant was denied by the original defendant and a written statement was filed stating that no such agreement was executed. In fact the original plaintiff was not put in possession. The original plaintiff was never in possession and, therefore, such a claim made by her is wholly unjustified. In fact with malafide intention saying that there was an agreement to sale and the original plaintiff was put in possession, the suit is filed to grab the land of the respondents/defendants.

(3.) The Trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that there was any agreement or that appellant was ever put in possession of the land. This fact was not proved that the appellant was in hostile possession of the land within the knowledge of the respondents/defendants and, therefore, the plea of adverse possession was not found proved. The suit was dismissed. The original plaintiff preferred an appeal against such judgment and decree and since the appeal has also been dismissed, this second appeal is required to be filed.