NARAYANSINGH Vs. BHAGWANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is at the instance of defendants against the judgment and decree dated 2-2-2005 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2-A/2004. By the impugned judgment and decree, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed. For deciding the appeal, following are the relevant facts.

(2.) FATHER of the respondent No. 1 (Late Vinay Singh) and the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were the half-blood brothers. Their common ancestor was Nonandsingh. It seems that the said Nonandsingh owned various agricultural holdings. He during his lifetime, by way of registered sale-deed, distributed various agricultural holdings between his three sons viz., Vinay Singh (father of respondent No. 1) and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 (Narayansingh and Jagdish) respectively. The agricultural suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 386, 387 and 351 are the subject- matter of the dispute. According to the plaintiffs, in view of the oral partition which took place in the year 1953, the suit land was given to Vinay Singh and he was in the exclusive possession of the suit land and carried out agricultural operations. When Nonandsingh executed the registered sale-deed in the year 1973 and showed that Khasra Nos. 386 and 387 had gone to the share of Jagdish, therefore, Vinay Singh instituted a suit in the year 1974 for declaration and permanent injunction against Nonandsingh and the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Vinay Singh also sought temporary injunction. The prayer of temporary injunction was allowed and the matter was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Biaora. Ultimately, the said suit was compromised and it was agreed that Vinay Singh shall be the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 386, 387 and 351 situated in Village Sawasada. The compromise was signed by Nonandsingh. Although it was agreed that the registered sale-deed executed in favour of Jagdish would be suitably amended, however, that could not be done and Nonandsingh expired and Vinay Singh continued to remain in possession of the suit land and continued to cultivate the same in his own right as an owner thereof. After the death of Nonandsingh and Vinay Singh, in order to grab the suit land, appellants threatened to interfere with the possession of the respondents. Hence, respondents instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that they are in possession of the suit land. The matter was resisted by the appellants and it was contended that they are the owners of the suit land by virtue of registered sale-deed executed by their father, Nonandsingh in the year 1973. With these pleadings, parties went to the trial and adduced their evidence both documentary as well as oral.

(3.) I have heard Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned counsel appearing for appellants at length and also perused the records of the courts below.