KISHORILAL TIWARI Vs. KANDHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Sihora, District Jabalpur, in Civil Regular Appeal No.61 -A/2013 whereby, dismissing his appeal, the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009, passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class -II Sihora, in Civil Original Suit No.31 -A/08, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff against him for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of the agricultural land described in the plaint, has been affirmed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that, the respondent herein has filed the impugned suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant with respect of the agricultural land bearing No. 34/4 Area 1.416 Hectare, (renumbered in the fresh settlement as Khasara No.55 area 1.41 Hector) situated in Patwari Halka No.7 at village Nigwani, contending that he being title holder is in possession of such land on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 10.09.1970 (Ex.D.1) executed by appellant in his favour. The appellant did not have any authority to keep or continue his name as Bhoomiswami in the revenue record on such land. The order dated 06.10.2012 passed by Naib Tahsildar in revenue case No.22.A/6/98 -99, directing the mutation of such land in the name of appellant is ab -initio void. As per further averment that the alleged transaction of the sale was neither the transaction of mortgage nor had taken place with the agreement to sale again to the appellant. It is also stated that with malafide intention, the appellant on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement to sale, has got mutated such land in his name by the aforesaid order of the Naib Tahsildar. The agreement was not only forged and fabricated document but the same had not given any right or title to the appellant. In any case, the agreement on which the mutation order was obtained itself, had not given any right or title of the land in favour of the appellant and in such premises, the impugned suit was filed with the relief mentioned above.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid pleadings, as many as four issues were framed by the trial Court on which the evidence was adduced by the parties. On appreciation, the suit of the respondent was decreed by holding him to be the Bhoomiswami and title holder of the land with possession. The abovementioned mutation order dated 6.10.2012 was also declared to be ab -initio void and the decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant to interfere in title and possession of such land was passed. Being dissatisfied with such judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant approached the appellate Court but on consideration by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the same was dismissed on which the appellant/defendant has come to this Court with this appeal.