MUNNIBAI Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original plaintiff has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 18 th July, 2017, passed by Additional District Judge, Vijaypur, District Sheopur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 10/2017, reversing the judgment and decree dated 13th December, 2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-1, Vijaypur, District Sheopur in Civil Suit No.25A/2016. The trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession of disputed patore and also issued perpetual injunction against the defendants regarding any construction work in disputed lane, whereas the lower appellate Court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) Plaintiff-Munnibai filed a civil suit before the trial Court on 11th July, 2014 on pleadings that the plaintiff is having a parental residential house in village Raghunathpur, wherein a patore is situated, which is shown by red-coloured lines in the map attached to the plaint and adjacent to disputed patore a disputed lane is situated on eastern side. The disputed patore is of plaintiff's title and ownership and defendants have illegally occupied the disputed patore without any right. On 28th November, 2006 defendant No.1-Vijay Singh had signed a compromise in presence of witnesses Preetam Singh Jadone and Suresh Singh and agreed that within three months defendant will vacate the patore. The agreement was also signed by the plaintiff's husband Man Singh but the defendants have not vacated the disputed patore till filing of the suit and defendants are trying to close the lane adjacent to the disputed patore and if the lane is closed, then discharge of used water from plaintiff's house would be stopped. The plaintiff is entitled for getting possession of the disputed patore from the defendants, hence decree for getting possession of the disputed patore from the defendants and perpetual injunction against the defendants for not doing any construction work in the disputed lane were sought.

(3.) The defendants, who are father and son, in their joint written statement pleaded that the disputed patore and lane is actually of ownership of defendants. The plaintiff has not filed any title document and has produced an arbitrary map attached with the plaint. The disputed patore is of parental ownership of defendants and defendants are legally occupying the patore and disputed lane. The plaintiff has prepared a forged document regarding compromise with the help of her interested witnesses. The defendants are having no knowledge regarding that document. As the plaintiff is having no title and ownership, hence the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. The plaintiff had previously filed false complaints at Police Station Raghunathpur. The plaintiff is having no cause of action, hence dismissal of the suit was prayed.