KANAKLATA Vs. SUBHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21. 4. 07 passed by the District Judge Betul in Civil Appeal no. 1-A/07 whereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31. 3. 06 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Betul in Civil Original Suit No. 48-A/05, decreeing the suit of the respondents No. 1 to 5 for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of the agricultural land described in the plaint, granted an additional relief of possession of the disputed land beyond the pleadings in favour of the respondents under Section 151 of the CPC, have filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that respondents No. 1 to 5 herein filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the appellants with respect of the land bearing Survey No. 2 area 2. 023 hectare, situated in village Durgapur Chopna, Tehsil Shahpur District Betual. As per averments of the plaint the respondents/plaintiffs being natives of such village are residing there while the appellants/defendants are residing illegally in such village. Long back before forty years the Rehabilitation department had allotted the disputed land to one Manoranjan Sarkar, the father-in-law of respondent No. 1 Subhadra, whose name was also recorded as Bhoomi Swami in the records of rights and since then he was cultivating the same land upto his death on 4. 3. 92. Thereafter it was mutated in the name of the respondents. As per further averments, the appellants and their predecessors were working as laborers of the respondents on such land, but in the year 2003, they started claiming themselves to be the owner of such land, on which, some dispute took place between them. Subsequent to it, in the year 2004, the appellants, contrary to the rights of respondent No. 1, forcefully tried to cultivate the same. It is also alleged that the appellant being residents of West Bengal, are not citizens of India that is why no land has been alloted to them either for rehabilitation or for agricultural purpose. But by taking advantage of the simplicity of the respondents, the appellants want to keep their possession forcefully over such land. In such premises, the aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents.

(3.) IN the written statement of the appellants, by denying the averments of the plaint, it is stated that treating them to be the displaced persons, they have been rehabilitated by the Union of India vide order dated 6. 2. 81 on the disputed land of such village. In such premises, the averments of the plaint challenging their citizenship, are denied. In addition, it was stated that the proceeding initiated at the instance of the respondents for their removal has been rejected by the Rehabilitation Department. It is also stated that the disputed land was allotted to the appellants by the aforesaid rehabilitation Department of the Central Government. With these averment, the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.