NANDKISHORE Vs. HAJARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants - defendants have directed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 3/5/1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Appeal No. 16-A/84 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 23/7/1984 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-I. Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 59-A/79 decreeing the suit of the respondent no. 1 filed against them for declaration, possession and mesne profit with respect of some agricultural land,

(2.) The factual matrix of the appeal in short are that the respondent no. 1 herein filed the aforesaid suit against the appellants contending that he purchased the disputed land bearing survey no. 223 area 1.53 acres situated at village Malakhedi alongwith some other land in consideration of Rs.1000.00 from its earlier Bhumiswami Meerabai. w/o of Mukundi while the daughter of Dirdayram, vide registered sale deed dtd. 5/7/1968. As per further pleadings in the year 1975, the appellants by defrauding the respondent no. 1 got mutated their names on the aforesaid land in the revenue record. The same was known on obtaining the copy of the Khasra then the mutation was challenged by way of appeal but the same was dismissed by the SDO, vide order dtd. 10/5/1978. It is further pleaded that inspite acquisition of the title of the aforesaid land from the earlier Bhumiswami, he was dispossessed by the appellant by adopting some illegal means. In such premises the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profit is filed.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellant no. 1 (defendant no. 1 in the trial court) by denying the averments of the plaint, it is stated that before 30 to 32 years the then Bhoomiswami of disputed land namely Hridayram gave him 0.89 acres land of the aforesaid number and since then he is coining in possession of the same as Bhumiswami and also cultivating the same. He has also protected his title by adverse possession. The revenue courts also mutated his name in the record, on filing the appeal against such order the same has also been dismissed. The suit is filed barred by limitation. The objection regarding non joinder of necessary parties is also taken.