MOTI LAL Vs. ASIF ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

(2.) In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/08/2016 (Annexure P/2) passed in Civil Suit No. 28- A/2015 by Civil Judge, Class-2, Lateri, District Vidisha, whereby, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed. The order dated 11/10/2018 (Annexure P/1) passed in Misc. Appeal No. 10/2016 by First Additional District Judge, Sironj, Dist. Vidisha is also called in question, whereby, the lower appellate court in exercise of the power under Order 43 Rule 1 r/w section 151 of CPC has affirmed the order passed by the trial court.

(3.) Necessary facts for adjudication of this case is that the respondents/plaintiffs have instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration, title and permanent injunction on the ground that he be declared owner of the entire land situated in survey No. 25 admeasuring area 0.228 hectare, survey No. 133 admeasuring area 1.328 out of 1,341 hectare and survey No. 108 admeasuring area 0.284 out of 1,138 hectare total area 1, 840 hectare situated at village Kolua Noabaad, Tehsil Lateri, Dist. Vidisha. It is further submitted that respondents/plaintiffs have purchased the land and they are having possession over the same. The petitioner/defendant has filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was especially pleaded that respondents No. 2 and 3 have neither any right and title over the property in question nor they were in possession at any point of time. It was also pleaded that deceased Sukhlal in connivance with the Patwari concerned got mutated his name on the property without any notice. However, the said mutation proceedings did not find place in the revenue record. On the basis of having received knowledge with regard to above mutation, the petitioner has filed an application for correction in the revenue record before the Tahsildar Lateri, District Vidisha and thereafter, the Tahsildar, Lateri corrected the revenue entry and name of Sukhlal was struck out. The said application was challenged before the SDO, who remanded the matter to the Tahsildar and after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondents, the Tahsildar directed the name of the petitioner to be mutated. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of the deceased (Sukhlal), challenged the order of Tahsildar before the SDO and Commissioner, but the order of Tahsildar was upheld. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was held to be owner of the land. The trial court allowed the application of the respondents/plaintiffs and restrained the present petitioner from interfering in the possession. The said order was also affirmed by the first appellate court.