MALKHAN SINGH Vs. SHIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2013 passed by I ADJ, Datia in Civil Appeal No. 13A of 2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.4.2011 passed by the court of Civil Judge, Class II, Datia in Civil Suit No. 2A of 2011 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of the plot ad measuring 22 24 sq.ft. situated at Village Bahadur Pur, District Datia which hereinafter would be referred to as "disputed land", was decreed. In this appeal, the appellants are referred to as "defendants" and the respondent No. 1 as "plaintiff''. The facts in brief of the plaint are that the disputed land was purchased by the plaintiff from previous owner Smt. Pyari Dulaiya vide registered sale deed dated 7.12.1961 and obtained possession thereof. The plaintiff applied for permission to raise construction over the disputed land and it was granted on 15.11.1977 but on starting construction, the defendants obstructed and tried to dispossess the plaintiff of the land, hence, the matter was reported by him to the state authorities but since nothing was done, hence, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for issuing permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the land by the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendants by filing the joint written statement denied the plaint averments stating that the plaintiff was not the owner of the disputed property and they are the owner of the property which was purchased by father of the defendant No. 1 and Grandfather of defendant No. 2 from one Narayan Das Bhrahman on 7.11.1961 and since then they have been in possession of the same. It was further stated that said Pyari Dulaiya was not having any title to sell the property in dispute. Even no permission was obtained by the plaintiff for raising construction from Gram panchayat concerned, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

(3.) After framing of the five issue, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants/appellants as stated above.