NARESHCHANDRA JAIN Vs. RATIRAM SARAHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15/5/2001 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.223A/1994, by which the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short, according to the appellant are that, he had purchased the disputed house bearing No.153/10 (new No.17/10) situated in Harnampura, Bajariya, Morar, District Gwalior, from defendant no.1, by registered sale deed dated 10/7/1984. On the east side of the house, house of Hafiz Ali, on the west side of the house a shop of Vishnu Sindhi, on the north side of the house a house of Krishna Swaroop and on the south side of the house a road is situated. It was further pleaded that the house was purchased alongwith electricity fittings, water taps etc. and on the date of execution of the sale deed itself, the possession was delivered. The name of the appellant was mutated in the records of Municipal Corporation. On 14/10/1984 and 18/10/1984 the appellant had deposited the house tax of the house for the period from 01/04/1984 to 31/03/1985. It was further pleaded that under the seduction by some other person, the defendant No. 1 filed his objection. However, on 26/09/1984 he submitted an application that he has no objection if the name of the plaintiff is mutated. Thereafter, on 22/12/1984 the plaintiff applied for grant of building permission and the requisite fee was deposited. On 02/01/1985 when the plaintiff went on the spot in order to carry out cleaning work, then the defendants came on the spot and threatened the plaintiff that they would not allow him to use the house and would damage the property. The plaintiff tried to lodge the report, however, the report was not lodged, as a result of which, it has become necessary to file the civil suit. It was pleaded that the defendant No. 1 and 2 have no right or title in the property and they have no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff or to cause any damage to the property. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint and further pleaded that on 13/01/1985, in spite of the interim order by the trial court, the defendants have allowed one Ramashankar to stay in the house, as a result of which, they have committed the mischief and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to get restoration of status quo ante.

(3.) Seller/Defendant No. 1 did not file his written statement.