MALKHAN SINGH LODHI Vs. JANKI LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of survey No.13 ad- measuring 1.392 hectares, situated at Mouza Kamrari, Tahsil and District Datia and after settlement, it has been renumbered as Survey No.81, ad-measuring 1.400 hectares. The land in dispute was belonging to the ancestors of the plaintiffs, namely, Ramdas, Bhairo and Ramrani, having their respective shares. It was pleaded that in the year 1996-97 the name of the father of the defendants No.1 and 2/ appellants was mutated in the revenue records without any basis. Thereafter, an application was filed before the SDO, Datia. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land and by mistake, during the settlement the names of the plaintiffs were not entered. Therefore, vide order dated 3rd July, 2013, the SDO directed the Patwari to mutate the names of the plaintiffs in Khasra Panchsala of the year 2003-04. It was further pleaded that the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 are trying to take forcibly possession, therefore, a FIR was lodged at Police Station Jigna on 11/11/2013 in Crime No.152/2013 for offence under Sections 447, 511, 294, 506-B of IPC and a criminal case is pending before the Court of JMFC, Datia bearing Criminal Case No.1789/2013. It was further pleaded that the order dated 03rd July, 2013 passed by the SDO, was challenged by the defendants before the Additional Collector and the appeal of the defendants was allowed by order dated 31st May, 2014 on the ground that the SDO has no authority to correct the entries and if the rights of the parties are affected because of entry in the revenue records, then they have remedy of filing a civil suit. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

(2.) The defendants No.1 and 2/appellants filed their written statements and pleaded that they are owners and are in possession of the suit property and they have got the land in succession from their father. It was further pleaded that the father of the appellants, namely, Manohar Singh, was in possession of the suit land for the last 40 years and accordingly, he applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The husband of the plaintiff No.1, namely, Dhaniram, father of the plaintiff No.4, namely, Bhairo Singh, Smt. Ramrani, mother of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were the parties in the application and an order was passed in favour of the father of the appellants/ defendants No.1 and 2 on 15th September, 1995.

(3.) The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 21 st December, 2017 passed in Civil Suit No.93-A of 2014 and it was declared that the respondents No.1 to 4/ plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the land in dispute and the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21 st December, 2017 passed by the trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Datia in Regular Civil Appeal No.01-A of 2018.