PURSHOTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge Khachrod District Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 14-A/96.

(2.) Shorn of verbiage, facts which are relevant and necessary for deciding this appeal may be stated as under. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit property is Survey No. 486/2 situated in village Khachrod. The suit is based on a sale-deed said to have been executed by collaterals of Gafoor Khan in favour of plaintiffs. Since then, plaintiffs claim to be in possession of suit property. It was alleged that initially suit property was agriculture land but after its diversion plaintiffs carved out and sold certain plots to others. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property is situated to the south of their other lands. It was further alleged that respondent No. 5 and 6 acting hand-inglove, foisted false revenue cases against appellants casting clouds on their title. They sought declarations that various orders passed against them in false revenue cases were non-est and it be declared that the suit property is situated on the southern side. They also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. It seems that their efforts to get the suit property demarcated were all in vain therefore, plaintiffs came out with the suit for declaration and permanent injunction after giving notice under Sec. 80 C. P. C. to have a shot at the litigation.

(3.) In their joint written statement, respondent No. 1 to 4 and 6 denied all the material allegations in the plaint. It was denied that collateral had any right to effect the sale or that the sale-deed was valid. According to defendants, Survey No. 486/2 is recorded in revenue records as Government Land and the sale-deed conferred no right, title or interest to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs possession was denied and it was further stated that in the garb of alleged sale-deed, plaintiffs were trying not only to grab the government land but to avoid lawful action against them. Respondent No. 5 also filed his written statement denying all allegations. All personal allegations of mala-fides made against respondent No. 5 and 6 (who were impleaded by name) were also specifically and categorically denied. It was submitted that plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief and the suit was liable to be dismissed with costs.