LAWS(MPH)-2008-11-12

LALJI Vs. SITARAM

Decided On November 18, 2008
LALJI Appellant
V/S
SITARAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 25. 8. 2007 rejecting thereby an application of the revisionist under order 7 rule 11 of C. P. C. in case no. 7-A/07 by the court of II Additional District Judge, katni (Fast Track) Court.

(2.) PLAINTIFF/respondent no. 1 instituted a suit against the defendant/respondent for declaration, recovery of Rs. 205400/- and permanent injunction mainly with the allegation that various pieces of land were owned by Ramnath who had two daughters, Plaintiff as well as respondent no. 1 are sons of those daughters of ramnath. Wife of Ramnath, namely, Paniya Bai inherited a property from her parents. A will dated 3. 5. 1985 allegedly executed by Paniya Bai was brought on floor which gave rise to the inter-se dispute. Ultimately, the matter was amicably settled by way of compromise and land comprised in Survey Nos. 190/1, 50/1 and 14/1 situated at village Devrakhurd, Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni was allotted to the plaintiff, whereas, other pieces of land were allotted to the defendant/ respondent no. 1. Aforesaid entire land situated at village Devrakhurd was acquired and a sum of Rs. 6,47,423/- was deposited in the S. B. I. , (defendant No. 2) towards compensation. Case of the plaintiff is that out of aforesaid sum, compensation to the tune of Rs. two lac payable in lieu of Survey Nos. 14/1 and 50/1 belongs to the plaintiff which has been illegally and unauthorizedly received by respondent no. 1. Plaintiff, accordingly, has prayed for further relief that he be declared entitled to the amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land comprised in Survey nos. 50/1 and 14/1. He also prayed that the amount be paid to him.

(3.) DEFENDANT/revisionist submitted an application under order 7 rule 11 of c. P. C. on the ground that the suit being barred under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act is not maintainable and the same be dismissed accordingly. This application was opposed and the learned trial judge vide impugned order dismissed the application, hence this revision.