SMT.SHANTI BAI Vs. HIMANSHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2017 passed in RCA No.2700028/2016 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge Katni, whereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

(2.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaint averments that appellants are the owner of land bearing khasra No.279/04 New No.279/07, having purchased the same from one Tulsa Bai, area 0.091 hectare of land, through registered sale deed dated 6/5/1986. the entire description of the property has been given in the sale deed and the map attached with sale deed. In the sale deed of the appellants, it was clearly mentioned that on the north side of the land there is open land, on the south there is road, on the west there is High Way and on the east, the house of one Soni was there. Thus, full particulars of the property purchased by the plaintiffs were given through the sale deed registered in his favour. It is also mentioned in the sale deed of the appellants that on the south there is road and a well and appellants shall have the right to use the well shown in the sale deed. Thus, the right of easement for use of the well was given in the sale deed to the appellants. It was pleaded by the appellants/plaintiffs that respondents No.1 and 2 were trying to disturb the possession of the land of the plaintiffs over the land which forms part of khasra No.279/07 and further that they are also preventing the plaintiffs/appellants from using the well. It was further contended by the plaintiffs that defendants did not have any right, title of interest on any part of the road situated on the south side of the land of the appellants as shown in the plaint map and since the road is adjoining to the land of the appellants, the respondents No.1 and 2 on the basis of a Tabalatnama were trying to disturb the possession of the land hence plaintiffs/appellants have filed a present civil suit.

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement before the Court and it was contended by them that by virtue of a Tabalatnama executed by Tulsa Bai in their favour in respect of the part of the land held by her and also the road on the south side of land of the appellant, they are the owners of the land and appellant has no right to the question their authority under law. It was further contended by respondents that in a demarcation proceedings held by the Revenue Court, the appellants have encroached upon the land of the respondents No.1 and 2 came out with a specific case that by virtue of Tabalatnama they are the owners of 0.116 hectares of land. In these premises they prayed for dismissal of the civil suit.