PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN Vs. KUSHUM LASHKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed arising out of the judgment and decree dated 15/09/2008 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No.8-A/2008 and 9-A/2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 07/08/2003 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.61-A/2002.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Municipal Council, Vidisha and late Shri Chironjilal (later on added as defendant). As per the pleadings, the disputed property is in possession of the plaintiffs and their ancestors for last 40 years and defendant Chironjilal raised a dispute with regard to land in question and the adjacent land which has been earlier decided by the Civil Court. It was the pleadings of the plaintiffs that one Mubarak Ali Shah who was the title holder and possessor of the suit property given a written patta dated 14/04/1941 in favour of Shri Bankelal Ji (father of Brijbhushan lal and father-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 Parwati Bai and since then on the basis of patta, they were the owner and possessor of the suit property over survey no. 1042/6. Since Mubarak Ali Shah was the title holder and possessor of the large stretch of land and constructed some houses over it, therefore, those small survey numbers could not have been measured and therefore, original Khasra of Samvat 2006 (year 1951) was without much correction therefore, demarcation of the said property was not possible. Municipal Council, Vidisha (defendant No.l) obtained a report from Sadar Kanoongo vide report dated 15/12/1943 in which the disputed property i.e. part of survey no. 1042/6 was found to be existing under possession of Brijbhusan, therefore, petitioner are the title holder and possessor of the suit property.

(3.) It is further pleaded that on 16/06/1979 around 3pm, defendant No.l, Municipal Council, Vidisha suddenly barged over the land in question with 50-60 labourers and tried to disrupt the possession of the plaintiffs. A complainant was made to the Superintendent of Police and construction was stopped. Thereafter, on 23/06/1979, constructed door over the disputed property and on 28/06/1979 proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was instituted.