PHULA BAI Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24. 1. 94 passed by the Ilnd addl. District Judge to District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/91 dismissing her Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree dated 5. 7. 91 passed by Civil judge Class-I in Civil Original Suit No. 30-A/84 whereby her suit for declaration and injunction, was partly dismissed.

(2.) THE Appellant/plaintiff herein filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents declaring hex to be the exclusive owner of disputed wall with a prayer restraining the respondents to interfere her enjoyment of such wall. As per averments of the plaint, the appellant purchased a house with some land including the disputed wall situated at village Chandpur, Tehsil Rehti in consideration of Rs. 975/- from its earlier owner Purushottam vide sale deed dated 27. 6. 61. Since then, he is in possession of such house and the disputed wall. Subsequently, respondents No. 1 and 2 and one Khilona Bai sold their adjoining house with the aforesaid wall, to respondent No. 3 Roopchand vide sale deed dated 6. 1. 82. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 1 and 2 did not have any legal right to sale the aforesaid wall measuring 34 feet in length. Such wall is also shown in the map annexed with the plaint. It is further stated that the sale deed dated 6. 1. 82 executed in favour of respondent No. 3 did not confer any right to respondents and the same is not binding against the right of the appellant. After knowing the aforesaid fact, a notice dated 15. 1. 82 was given by the appellant to respondent No. 3 and, in continuation of it, to protect his interest, the impugned suit was filed by the appellant.

(3.) IN the written statement of the respondent No. 3, it is stated that he purchased the aforesaid house along with the disputed wall. The appellant does not have any right or title over such wall. The same was constructed 20 years ago by one kashi Ram Sahu thereafter on such wall, an open courtyard is constructed by him. The appellant did not have any legal right to file the aforesaid suit for the relief as prayed.