RAM PRAMOD KACCHI Vs. GAYADEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 22-9-90, passed by II ADJ, Sidhi in C. A. No. 1-A/89, reversing, the judgment-decree dated 31-1-87, passed by III Civil Judge Class II, Shahdol in C. S. No. 33-A/86, plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.

(2.) THE appeal has been heard on the following substantial question of law :-

(3.) ADMITTEDLY suit land Khasra No. 501, area 0. 22 acres, Village Panchgaon, Tehsil Sohagur, District Shahdol is recorded in the name of plaintiff/appellant Rampramod. On a portion of this land, residential houses were constructed by defendant/respondents, however, the remaining portion of land described in Para 4 of the plaint-map attached therewith, remained in exclusive possession of plaintiff/appellant. Defendant/respondents on 25-2-78, tried to dispossess him from the aforesaid portion described in Para 4 of the plaint and map attached therewith. Therefore, plaintiff/appellant instituted C. S. No. 33-A/86 before III Civil Judge Class II, Shahdol seeking declaration of tile and injunction restraining defendant/respondents from dispossessing him from the suit land. The suit aforesaid has been resisted by the defendant/respondents stating inter alia that plaintiff/appellant Rampramod is not related to defendant/respondents. Suit land Khasra No. 501, area 0. 22 acres remained in possession of defendant/respondent and they never intended to dispossess the plaintiff/appellant. The Civil Judge in C. S. No. 33-A/86 vide judgment dated 31-1-87 held that plaintiff/appellant Rampramod is owner of suit land Khasra No. 501, area 0. 22 acres. Except the portion of land consisting of residential houses of defendant/respondents the remaining area always remained in exclusive possession of plaintiff/appellant. On 25-2-78, defendant/respondents threatened him to dispossess from the remaining portion of land. As such, C. S. No. 33-A/86 was decreed and defendant/respondents were restrained from dispossessing plaintiff/appellant from the suit land described in Para 4 of the plaint-map attached therewith. Being aggrieved, defendant/respondents preferred C. S. No. 1-A/89 before the II ADJ, Shahdol. The Court below setting aside the judgment-decree passed by Civil Judge in C. S. No. 33-A/86, allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 22-9-90 and dismissed the suit C. S. No. 33-A/86. Being aggrieved, plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.