ANAND MURARI DUBEY Vs. VENEET LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the original appellants/plaintiffs (Anand Murari Dubey and Savitri Devi, who have died during second appeal and now represented by LRs) challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 2/2/1996 passed by 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No.9A/1993 reversing the judgment and decree dtd.9/5/1992 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar in Civil Suit No.55A/1989, whereby Trial Court decreed the appellants/plaintiffs' suit for possession of disputed land, area 0.95 acre but in civil appeal filed by the defendants (LRs of defendant 1-Dr. Benat Lal), First Appellate Court has dismissed the suit.

(2.) In short, the facts are that original plaintiffs 1-2, namely Anand Murari Dubey and Savitri Devi instituted a suit for possession of land survey no. 483 area 0.95 acre situated in Village Mudra with the allegations that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiffs from its previous owner Smt. R.Wal.D. vide registered sale deed dtd.11/4/1975 for consideration of Rs.3,000.00 but the defendant 1 has illegally taken possession over the land. It is also alleged that R.Wal.D. never executed any gift deed on 26/12/1965 in favour of defendant 1, which being unregistered, is not admissible in evidence and does not confer any title to the defendant 1. It is also alleged that the revenue officers have in the light of illegal gift deed, illegally cancelled mutation of the plaintiffs. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed for possession on the basis of sale deed dtd.11/4/1975.

(3.) The defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the suit land is in possession of the defendant 1, which was given to him by Smt. R.Wal.D. in the year 1965 for construction of the house. Pursuant thereto, he got raised construction of house after spending an amount of Rs.18,000.00. It is contended that on 26/12/1965 Smt. R.Wal.D. executed a gift deed in favour of defendant 1 and thereafter, he is in possession and vide order dtd.27/3/1979 passed by Consolidation Officer (during chakbandi), the defendant 1 was given bhoomiswami rights over the land and Additional Tahsildar rightly mutated the land in the name of defendant 1 and the appeal filed by plaintiff-Anand Murari was dismissed rightly. The plaintiffs have no right over the suit property and the sale deed allegedly executed in favour of plaintiffs, is without consideration and illegal. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.