DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. CHANDRAWATI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment dated 31/10/2001 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Suit No.51-A/2000 by which the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents no.1 and 2 for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been decreed.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiffs/respondents no.1 and 2 had filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction on the ground that by a registered sale deed dated 1/2/1989 seven persons including the plaintiffs had purchased 11250 sqft of land situated in Bhargava Colony, Guna. Later on, all the seven persons, namely, plaintiffs and Smt. Munnidevi, Rameshchandra Bhargava, Smt. Daulatbai, Dharnidhar Tiwari and Smt. Pushpadevi got their names jointly mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, the land was partitioned mutually and by order dated 30/1/1990 the land was got diverted from agricultural to residential purposes.

(3.) The plaintiffs have got house constructed, which is marked by red colour in the map. Two rooms of 26 X 12 each have been constructed and on the north side a passage has been left, whereas on the east side, houses of Smt. Pushpadevi and others are situated. The plaintiffs decided to construct their house on the land admeasuring 30 X 40 sqft. and accordingly, the plaintiff no.1 constructed a room of 12 X 12 sqft. and plaintiff no.2 constructed one room of 14 X 12 sqft. and the remaining land is lying open in the plot of plaintiff no.2. The construction was raised about 1 years back and the rooms were locked by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants have broke open the locks and at present the defendants no.4, 5 and 6 are residing in the said rooms. The father of the plaintiffs and other relatives have told the plaintiffs that the locks of the rooms were broken on 20/2/1992 and 21/2/1992 and the defendants no.4, 5 and 6 have brought their belongings and have started residing therein. A written complaint was made by the husband of the plaintiff no.2 on 24/2/1992 because the plaintiff no.2 after marriage is residing in Shivpuri and prior to her marriage, she was in service and was posted at Guna and since the house is situated in Guna and, therefore, she is resident of Guna. The revenue authorities and the Town Inspector had carried out the inspection on the spot and thereafter the defendants no.1 and 2 were stopped from carrying out any further construction. The plaintiffs have come to know that the defendant no.3 has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 on 8/1/1992 in respect of the open land. In the sale deed it was mentioned that Kashinath had filed a civil suit against defendant no.3, which has been dismissed by judgment dated 19/9/1991 and the civil appeal has also been dismissed by judgment dated 12/12/1991, but the fact is that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was rejected and the civil suit is still pending. The sale deed executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 is void ab-initio because the defendant no.3 had no right or title to execute the sale deed and the defendant no.1 does not derive any title from the sale deed executed in his favour and the name of the defendant no.1 has also not been mutated in the revenue record so far. The plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the said sale deed on 21/2/1992, but in spite of various applications made to the Administrative Officers, they have not got any relief. The defendants no.4, 5 and 6 are residing in the disputed property and the defendants no.4 and 5 are making payment of Rs.300/- per month to defendant no.1 by way of rent, whereas the defendant no.6 is paying Rs.150/- per month by way of rent to the defendant no.2, who is the father of defendant no.1. On 15/2/1992 at about 8 AM the defendants no.1 and 2 came on the spot alongwith labourers and tried to start raising construction. On an oral complaint, the SHO sent a Constable and because of that the defendants no.1 and 2 left the spot, but threatened that they would resume the construction very soon and would take possession of the entire land. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute and the defendant no.3 has illegally executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 under the influence of defendant no.2. The defendants no.1 and 2 after taking possession of the property have let out the rooms to defendants no.4, 5 and 6 and are inclined to raise additional construction and in case the additional construction is allowed to be raised, then the present suit would become infructuous. Accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, possession as well as for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 be declared as null and void.