BABULAL Vs. MATHURALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2019 passed by District Judge, Guna in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1800082/2016 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-I, Guna in Civil Suit No. 54-A/2013.

(2.) The facts, in short are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendants/appellants seeking declaration, for return of possession and for awarding mesne profits @ Rs. 21,000/- per year in respect of the disputed land Survey No.800/min-2 area 0.335 hect. at Village Guna.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he purchased the land from ex- owner-Kasia Bai vide sale deed dated 15.01.2008 and he was getting the benefits from the land by Batai. He filed an application for mutation and his name was mutated in the revenue record and he got Rin Pustika also. The plaintiff/respondent further pleaded that he is ploughing the land since the date of sale and there are certain trees also in the land and on 11.07.2012 when the plaintiff/respondent was cultivating the land, the defendants/ appellants came with arms and threatened for the possession of land. Plaintiff/respondent filed complaint in the Police Station. Thereafter, on 17.07.2012 at about 10 pm defendants Gopal and Laxman tried to cut the trees, the plaintiff/respondent objected the same, on the basis of which, a complaint has been filed. The plaintiff/respondent pleaded that in the present case, learned court below allowed the application for temporary injunction and directed not to interfere in possession of the land but the defendants/appellants in breach of order tried to take possession of the land of the plaintiff, therefore, an application under Order 39 Rule 2 was filed and same was registered at Case No. 09/2013 and Court allowed the application on 17.07.2017 and defendants/appellants were directed for one month civil prison. On 16.10.2012 at about 10 am and started to cut the crops of soyabean and thereby created loss of about Rs. 21,000/-. In this regard a complaint has been filed which is pending in the court. The defendants/appellants have taken possession of the land during pendency of the suit.