RAMCHARAN Vs. DAMODAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2016 passed by First Additional District Judge, Satna in regular Civil Appeal No.31-A/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 8.7.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Satna, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') in Civil Suit No.45-A/2010 has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rising to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff instituted a suit before trial Court, stating that the father of the plaintiff appellant, Sahdev was the owner of the disputed land Khasra No.231/2 area 0.031 hect. situated in Village Kherbasani, Tahsil Maihar, District Satna. In his life time he remained in possession of the land and after his death plaintiff Ramcharan became owner and is in continuous possession of the land. This land has never been sold by Sahdev to Purushottam. The sale deed dated 5.4.1962 alleged to have been executed by Sahdev in favour of Purushottam is null and void as forged document. It is further pleaded that in the month of December, 2008 plaintiff came to know that defendants No.1 to 3 are trying to sell the disputed land. He obtained the copies of Khasra Panchashala on 16.12.2008 wherein the name of defendants No.1 to 3 were recorded as Bhumiswami (owner) of the land. On perusal of the revenue record, it is revealed that Purushottam, who was the father of defendants No.1 and 3, had got his name recorded as Bhumiswami on the disputed land on the basis of forged sale deed dated 5.4.1965, in collusion with revenue authorities. After death of Purushottam the names of his wife and children (defendants No.1 to 3) was mutated in revenue records on the disputed land. The defendant No.1 had sold this land to defendant No.5 vide sale deed dated 20.7.2009 without any right and authority. As the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the disputed land, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for seeking relief of declaration of his title and possession on the disputed land and also declaration that the sale deed dated 5.4.1965 and 20.7.2009 as null and void and permanent injunction to restrain defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants/respondents No.1 to 4 remained ex parte and they did not file written statement.