LEELA KUSHWAHA Vs. PHOOLCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been preferred under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 8/8/2016 passed in RCS-A No.05A/14 (Phoolchand and others vs. Smt. Leela Kushwaha and others) by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Satna (M.P.).

(2.) Since parties in both the appeals are same and both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and decree and fate of both the appeals depends upon the fate of one appeal, therefore, both the appeals are being heard analogously and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts of F.A. No.645/2016 are being taken note of.

(3.) A suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 5 against the defendants/appellants for declaration of title over the suit property on the basis of plea of adverse possession. A declaration was also sought that the mutation order dtd. 19/1/2009 passed by the Tahsildar, Raghurajnagar in the Case No.48-A/74/06-07 be declared as null and void. Further, a declaration was also sought that the sale deed dtd. 5/2/2009 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 10 in favour of defendant Nos.11 and 12 be declared void ab initio and the order dtd. 16/6/2009 passed by the Tahsildar in a Case No.85-A-6/08-09 in favour of defendant Nos.11 and 12 be declared null and void and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land be passed. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and granted decree of permanent injunction but with regard to other reliefs, the suit was dismissed therefore, both the parties have preferred the appeal. The First Appeal No.645/2016 has been preferred by the defendants saying that the suit ought to have been dismissed and even a decree of permanent injunction should not have been granted. In another appeal preferred by the plaintiffs i.e. F.A. No.744/2016, in which they have claimed that the suit ought to have been decreed in toto, therefore, they have challenged the said judgment and decree on the ground that in addition to the decree of permanent injunction, a decree with regard to other reliefs should also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. To resolve the controversy involved in the suit and as has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to mention the facts of the case in nutshell, which are as under :-