MANGILAL Vs. JEEVAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 15.05.2014 passed in C.S.No.33-A/2013 in Civil Judge, Class- II, Khachrod and judgement dated 12.03.2018 passed by the ADJ, Khachrod whereby the civil suit as well as first appeal both have been dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the land Survey No.328/1 (area 0.20 hectare) village Parsutiya. According to the plaintiff, he is owner of the land bearing Survey No.328/1 (area 0.20 hectare) by virtue of sale deed dated 06.06.2002 and his name has been mutated in the revenue record. According to the plaintiff, at the south side of his land, another land bearing Survey No.328/2 (area 0.50 hectare) belonging to Manakchand and Ramchand is situated. On 11.08.2013 the defendants with the help and others have spread pesticides over the soya bean crops of the plaintiff. He immediately lodged the report in the police station. The plaintiff is in possession since last 10 years and cultivating the land. The defendant has illegally cultivated over his land, therefore, he be restrained to enter into peaceful possession by way of permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant filed the written statement refuting the averments made in para 1 of the plaint. According to the defendant by a sale deed dated 29.05.2013 he purchased Survey No.328/2 (area 0.50 hectare) from Manakchand and Ramchand and he has got demarcated the land in which the plaintiff was found in possession over the aforesaid land as encroacher. He has initiated proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLR Code and same are pending. Learned trial Court framed 2 issues for adjudication and after recording the evidence of both the parties and dismissed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 15.05.2014. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff is owner and in possession of Survey No.328/1 (area 0.20 hectare) but he has failed to prove that the defendant is trying to disturb his peaceful possession. Being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 15.05.2014, plaintiff filed the first appeal before the Court of ADJ. Vide judgement dated 12.03.2018 the ADJ has dismissed the first appeal, hence, present second appeal before this Court.