JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. RAMDATT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiff is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 24/12/2005 passed in civil appeal No. 14A/2005 preferred by the defendant and civil appeal No. 17A/2005 preferred by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE facts relevant and on record necessary for disposal of the appeal are to the effect that plaintiff -Jagdish filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as regards the suit land; a piece of agricultural land falling in survey No. 79 situated in village Madha, Tahsil Mauganj, District Rewa, to the effect that Rambharosha transferred the suit land out of his share (1/2), i.e.71.5 decimal out of 2.86 acre, to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 77.50/ - by way of simple sale note and delivered the possession. Remaining half portion of the aforesaid land, defendant No. 2 -Jograj had sold to one Sant Prasad and delivered the possession. Accordingly, mutation was done vide order dated 8/6/1982, but with ulterior motive Jograj had challenged the aforesaid order of mutation by filing an appeal. The appeal upon consideration was allowed and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for decision afresh. Consequently, by order dated 29/2/1987 the Tahsildar had cancelled the mutation. Resultantly, having apprehension of being forcibly dispossessed on 30/6/1987, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed, in the alternative, title to the suit land by adverse possession asserting possession over the suit land for more than 12 years.

(3.) THE trial court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. The trial court found plaintiff failed to prove title of the suit land either on the basis of alleged sale note or by adverse possession as plaintiff was not found to be in uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land for 12 years hostile to Rambharosha or defendants justifying the aforesaid assertion of perfection of title by adverse possession. However, the trial court found the plaintiff to be in possession of 1/4th part of the total area of land i.e.2.86 acres of survey No. 79 and, therefore, decreed the suit to the extent of injunction against dispossession.