GANESHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 10-10-2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class 2, Seondha, Distt. Datia, in C.S. No.8A/2016, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that 1/4th portion of Aaraji No.945, which is situated in village Cheena, is the land in dispute. In the revenue records, the total area is mentioned as 200 Aare, whereas it should have been 275 Aare. Prior to preparation of settlement map, no road in between Cheena-Diguan was shown, whereas now in the settlement map, Cheena-Diguan road has been shown. It is the case of the petitioner that Dev Singh and Ramcharan had jointly gifted .049 hectare out of Aaraji No.722 for construction of school, on which the building of the school is standing. Dev Singh was the stepfather of the plaintiff and after the death of stepfather and mother, the plaintiff got 1/4 th share in the property of his stepfather. After the land was gifted, although an entry was made in the revenue records, with regard to gift deed, but the area of land, gifted by Dev Singh and Ramcharan, was not mentioned. In the meanwhile, Cheena-Diguan road has been constructed. Thus, after deducting the land, which has been utilized for Cheena-Diguan road and School, 450 Aare of land is remaining in Aaraji No.722. After the death of Dev Singh and Ramcharan, .74 Aare came to the share of the legal representatives of Ramcharan, whereas .74 Aare came to the share of the plaintiff. However, after the settlement, certain mistakes were committed and accordingly, the area has been reduced. Thus, the suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of disputed land over which there is the house and garden as well as to correct the revenue records in which the area has been wrongly reduced and a permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) It appears that the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Commissioner to demarcate the land.