(1.) THE appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 13. 1. 1994 passed by First Additional District Judge Satna In C. A. No. 79-A/91 thereby partially modifying the judgment and decree dated 31. 7. 1985 passed by First Civil Judge class IInd Satna in Civil Suit No. 82-A/94.
(2.) PLAINTIFF/respondent Deosharan preferred instant suit for possession of disputed land bearing survey No. 180/1b in area 0. 77 decimal. The plaintiff base the title on sale deed dated 29. 3. 1971 executed by Chunwada in his favour for the aforesaid area out of survey NO. 180/1b. Plaintiff claimed to be in possession w. e. f. 12. 2. 1973. Earlier land was mortgaged with him. Plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit land by premchand. The defendant No. 1 claimed that he has purchased the disputed land from defendant No. 2 bhaiyalal. Defendant No. 2 got his name entered in the revenue records in collisuon with Patwari. Proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. was initiated in which it was held that defendant No. 1 was in possession of the land two months prior to date of attachment, therefore, the possession was handed over to defendant No. 1. In case land has been sold by Chunwada to defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2, sale is not valid.
(3.) IN the written statement, defendants No. 1 and 2 have contended that Karn Bahadur Singh had purchased the disputed land from defendant No. 3 namely Chunwada and his two brothers namely Rama and Sudama vide registered sale deed dated 21. 9. 1967, thereafter Karn bahadur Singh was in possession of the disputed land till it was sold on 13. 7. 1971 to Smt. Ajay Kumar, later on, on 5. 4. 1972 the disputed land was sold to defendant No. 5 Ramesh Chand Jain, since then premchand Jain and Ramesh Chand Jain are in possession of the disputed land. Plaintiff was not in possession of the disputed land. Defendant No. 3 had no right to sell to the plaintiff, he had already sold the land to Karn Bahadur Singh. He had no subsisting title to the disputed land.