JAGDISH Vs. BABURAM

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 30.01.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 19-A/2012 by the Additional District Judge, Pawai, District Panna, arising out of judgment and decree dated 01.12.2007 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2006 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pawai, District Panna.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that a sale-deed said to be executed in favour of the respondents/defendants on 12.09.1995 was null and void and not binding on the appellant. A permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants to interfere in the possession of the land in suit was also claimed. It was contended that the land was originally belonging to the appellant and was owned by his ancestors. He was cultivating the said land. Without any notice to the appellant, the name of the respondents/defendants was mutated on the said land, which fact came to the notice of the appellant in the year 2003 when he made the application before the revenue authorities and could know that on the basis of sale-deed dated 12.09.1995, the names of respondents/defendants were mutated on the land in suit. The complaint made by the appellant before the revenue authority was rejected, therefore, the suit was required to be filed. Such a claim made by the appellant was contested by the respondents/defendants on the plea that the sale-deed dated 12.09.1995 was rightly executed in favour of the respondents/defendants and ever since they were in possession of the said property. The application for mutation was made on the strength of such a sale-deed and names of the respondents/defendants were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in suit. Thus, it was contended that no decree, as claimed, was to be granted in favour of the appellant.

(3.) The Trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and dismissed the suit of the appellant holding that he has failed to prove that the sale-deed dated 12.09.1995 was a forged document. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, the appellant preferred a first appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which after marshalling the evidence available on record, reached to the conclusion that no error was committed by the Civil Court in rejecting the claim of the appellant and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal is required to be filed.