ARTI DATTA Vs. GAYATRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments heard. The present appeal under Order 43 rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order of remand dated 20/04/2012 passed by learned IVth Additional District Judge, Satna (MP) in Civil Appeal No. 70-A/11.

(2.) Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land by demolishing the construction made by the appellants/defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit as the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession. Thereafter, learned appellate court vide impugned judgment allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiffs for producing additional documents and remanded the case to decide it afresh after considering the documents and giving an opportunity of rebuttal to the defendants with regard to possession over the suit land. Being aggrieved by the order of learned appellate court, the appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) On perusal of both the judgments it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to land in question belonging to the plaintiffs and defendants respectively but there is some dispute with regard to boundaries between the parties. Nobody is claiming more land than the land in their possession. No question of title is involved between the parties. The defendants are said to be in possession of the land which is shown as Nazul land in khasra entries but there is no objection with regard to their possession from the side of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs are claiming land to be in ownership bearing survey no. 206/3/1. Therefore, dispute between the parties can only be resolved by determination and ascertainment of boundaries of their respective lands by issuing commission in the name of revenue authorities. It has been held by this court in the matter of Kamal Singh and another vs. Roop Singh through L.Rs and another, 2011 ILR(MP) 1731that the controversy with regard to boundaries between the parties should have been resolved by the trial court by issuing commission in the absence of agreed map between the parties. However, in the absence of agreed map it was not possible to decide that the plaintiffs or defendants are having possession over which area of land mentioned either in khasra. Therefore, for deciding real dispute between the parties, determination/ascertainment of boundaries of their respective lands is necessary.