MANIRAM Vs. RAMKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Judge Class-II, Jaisingh Nagar District Shahdol vide judgment and decree dated 25.6.2008 partly allowed the civil suit of the respondents No.1 to 11 and declared their title over the land bearing Survey No.669/832 area 0.825 hectare situated at Village Masiyari Patwari Halka Chitraon Tahsil Jaisingh-Nagar District Shahdol, whereas in appeal the learned Additional District Judge Beohari District Shahdol vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.2011 accepted the appeal and declared the title of the respondents No.1 to 11 on that land having area of 0.825 hectare and also granted a decree of mandatory injunction that in 0.105 portion of that land on which the house was erected by the appellants be removed and a vacant possession of that land be given to the respondents No.1 to 11. A perpetual injunction was also granted that the appellants shall not interfere in the possession of the respondents on the suit property. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decree and judgments, the appellants/defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

(2.) THE case of the respondents No.1 to 11/plaintiffs before the trial Court was that the entire land was ancestral land of the plaintiffs. Initially one Jagole Kachhi had the title and possession of the land and thereafter Hiralal Kachhi son of Jagole Kachhi continued with the title and possession of the property. Thereafter the plaintiffs got the land in succession. On 22.6.2001 the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 forcefully took the possession of some portion of the land, and therefore a proceeding under Section 250 of the MP Land Revenue Code was initiated. The Tahsildar vide order dated 29.6.2002 gave a possession of area 0.720 hectare of the land to the plaintiffs, but possession of the remaining portion was not given to the plaintiffs, because it was not in the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar. During the pendency of such proceeding, the defendants No.1 and 2 had erected a small kachcha house on the remaining portion of the land. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have instituted a civil suit for declaration of mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction to get the vacant possession of the property and to get the perpetual injunction that the defendants No.1 and 2 may be prohibited to interfere in their possession in future.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge after framing the issues collected the evidence from the parties and thereafter it is found that the defendants could not prove the fact of exchange. It was found proved that the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit land and it was their ancestral property. Also they were in possession of the property. It was found that the plaintiffs could not prove the possession and construction of a house done by the defendants No.1 and 2 over the area 0.105 hectare of the land, and therefore decree of declaration only was granted. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the suit of the plaintiffs in toto and a perpetual injunction as well as relief of mandatory injunction was granted by the appellate Court.