SWAMI DATT PYASI Vs. VIDYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 8/2/2023, at the request of counsel for the parties, this case was listed for final hearing under the caption 'Top of the List' on 16/2/2023. On 16/2/2023, nobody appeared for the parties and, therefore, the case was adjourned for 22/2/2023 for final hearing. Again on 27/7/2023, the matter was taken up for hearing but it got adjourned on the request made by counsel for the appellant and thereafter the Court, considering the fact that the appeal is nine years old, adjourned the case with a direction that on the next date, it would be argued finally. On 17/8/2023, on behalf of the respondents, an application was filed for change of counsel and Shri Shriniwas Tiwari appeared on behalf of the respondents as the changed counsel and the case was fixed for 20/12/2023. On 21/9/2024, an application for urgent hearing was considered and the Court was pleased to direct for listing the case in the following week. On 28/2/2025, at the request of counsel for the appellants, the case was directed to be listed for final hearing on 5/3/2025 under the caption 'Top of List' and finally on 23/4/2025, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the case was finally heard.

(2.) This first appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants challenging the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 17/4/2014 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.84/09 (Swami Datt Pyasi and others Vs. Smt.Vidya Bai and others) whereby the trial Court had dismissed the suit.

(3.) As per facts of the case, the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration of title on the basis of 'Will' dtd. 28/10/1987 (Exhibit P/1) and also seeking permanent injunction and removal of encroachment over the suit land. However, the plaintiffs had also sought a declaration that the settlement-deed dtd. 21/8/2007 was executed by Smt. Vidya Bai (defendant No.1) in favour of her son namely Praveen Pyasi in respect of land ad-measuring 800 sq. ft. and marked as 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' with red colour in the plaint map be declared as null and void. As per the plaintiffs, this land in fact belonged to Dinesh Datt Pyasi.