POONAMCHAND Vs. BASANTI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 11/1/2010 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Fast Track, District Khandwa in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2009 arising out of judgment and decree dtd. 12/4/2007 passed by 2nd Civil Judge ClassI, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.55-A/2006.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession pleading inter alia that the ancestral land bearing Khasra No. 66, area 0.22 Decimal situated in Village Mundi, Tehsil Khandwa, District East Nimar was recorded in the name of Sakharam, who is father of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and father-in-law of the plaintiff No. 1. In the revenue record of the year 68-69, the said land was recorded in the name of Rukhdu and Sakharam, S/o Kaluji. A family partition took place between Rukhdu and Sakharam and accordingly 11 decimal of land situated on the western side went to the share of Rukhdu and 11 decimal of land situated on the Eastern side went to the share of Sakharam. Sakharam was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute and after his death, his son Amarchand came in possession of the same. Rukhdu has also expired and Amarchand has also expired. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Amarchand; whereas, the defendants No. 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of Rukhdu. However, in the year 1989, the defendants in connivance with the revenue authorities got the land recorded in the name of the defendants No. 1 and 2 only. It was claimed that the defendants have no right or title to get their names recorded in respect of 11 decimal of land which was situated on the eastern side and went to the share of Sakharam. Accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of title and possession in respect of the said land.

(3.) It was further pleaded that in the month of July 2004 when the plaintiff No. 1 came back from the pilgrimage, then she found that the Hut which was already constructed on the disputed land was demolished and the lock was broke open by the defendants No. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff No. 1 lodged a report and criminal case is pending. It was further claimed that the defendants No. 1 and 2 had forcibly taken possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs tried to get their land back but they did not succeed and accordingly, the suit was filed.