PRAKASH CHANDRA Vs. TEEKARAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposals of S.A. No.706/2006, S.A. No.707/2006, S.A. No.708/2006, S.A. No.709/2006, S.A. No.710/2006, S.A. No.711/2006, S.A. No.712/2006, S.A. No.716/2006. S.A. No.720/2006, S.A. No.721/2006, S.A. No.722/2006 & S.A. No. 723/2006, as the judgment in all the cases are identical and the respondent No.1, who is plaintiff in all the cases are the same.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21/08/2006, passed by XIth Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Appeal No. 3/2006, whereby the judgment and decree dated 02/01/2006, passed by XIIth Civil Judge,Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No.68-A/2004, was confirmed, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1 was decreed, the present appeal has been filed, which has been admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 08/12/2006, on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and possession on 13/10/2003, alleging that the respondent No.1, is the owner of the land bearing survey No.2/1 measuring 1.473 hect. and survey No.3/1 measuring 0.376 hect., situated at village Gehli, Tehsil and District Indore. It was alleged that the suit land originally belonged to Mangilal, S/o. Madanlal, from whom respondent No.1 had purchased vide registered sale deed dated 20/06/2001. Further case of the the respondent No.1 was that after purchasing the property the respondent No.1 moved an application under Sec. 129 of MPLRC, before the Superintendent Land Records for demarcation. Upon the application filed by the respondent No.1 the demarcation took place on 16/02/2002, by the Assistant Superintendent Land Record Dewas and Superintendent Land Record Indore as the land was situated on the border of Dewas and Indore District. It was alleged in the plaint that at the time of demarcation for the first time respondent No.1 came to know that the appellant is in occupation of the land measuring 33'X28', which belongs to respondent No.1 and has constructed the house and 'Bada'. It was alleged in the suit that the portion of the land over which the appellant has encroach is a part of survey No.2/1. It was also alleged that prior to 16/02/2002, when the demarcation took place respondent No.1 was not having the knowledge that the property, which is in occupation of appellant is the part of Survey No.2/1. In other suits also filed by respondent No.1 nature of allegations in plaint was same except the area in occupation of each of the appellant was different.