BABULAL Vs. AMRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC is filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 13/12/2019 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Agar, District Shajapur (now Agar Malwa) in Regular Civil Appeal No.RCA 45- A/2019 allowing the first appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 8/4/2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Civil Judge, Class-I, Agar, District Agar Malwa in Civil Suit No.28-A/16 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants with regard tot he suit property.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that on 7/12/2015 appellant/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants regarding suit property agricultural land survey no.362 area 1.61 hectare (Old survey no.216/2 area 1.615 hectare) situated at village Gangadhadda Tehsil and district Agar-Malwa. It is further pleaded that plaintiff's brother Ruggaji purchased the suit land from Heera S/o Khumanji on 18/1/1994 and on this day Heeraji executed an agreement and delivered possession of the suit land to Ruggaji. After the death of Ruggaji appellant was cultivating the land and since then he is in possession till today. After the death of Heeraji, respondents got the land mutated in their name in conspiracy with Patwari and created dispute therefore, with the mediation of the villagers, appellant gave Rs.1.00 lac to Dunga and Narayan and they executed an agreement in favour of appellant on 20/4/2009. It was agreed by the defendants that after the soyabeen crop they will execute sale deed in favour of appellant/plaintiff. Appellant/plaintiff applied for recording of his possession in the revenue record before the Tehsildar which was allowed vide order dtd. 19/10/2012 and plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue records. The appellant/plaintiff is in possession of suit land since 10/1/1994 therefore perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Respondent tried to interfere in the possession of plaintiff therefore, suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) Defendant denied the plaint averments and pleaded that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and they are in possession. Ruggaji is still alive therefore, plaintiff is not having right title over the land.