RAMRANI Vs. DURGA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed this Second appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned additional District Judge, Khurai in Civil Appeal No. 44-A of 1992 allowing the appeal of plaintiffs and thereby decreeing their suit which was dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment dated 28. 8. 1992 passed in Civil suit No. 19-A of 1988.

(2.) IN brief the case of plaintiffs as borne out from his plaint is that they filed a suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction in respect to certain agricultural land which is subject matter of the suit and the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint. In para-2 specific pleading of the plaintiffs is that since 1971 they are in possession of the suit property as owner in the knowledge of defendants and their predecessors and, therefore, they have acquired Bhumiswami right on the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. Since, defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property, a decree of perpetual injunction has been sought by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE defendants-appellants refuted the plaint averments by filing joint written statement. The Trial Court thereafter framed necessary issues and issue no. 2 was framed in respect to acquisition of Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. The trial Court after recording the evidence while deciding issues 1 and 2 from para 8 to 18, specifically held in para -12 that plaintiffs have come forward on the basis of specific plea of adverse possession and not on the basis of title and since no evidence has been led by them on the point of adverse possession, on the contrary, they have led evidence on title that how they are title holder of the suit property and derived their title, their suit cannot be decreed and eventually dismissed the suit.