DHIRAJ JAGGI Vs. CHUNTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2003 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2003 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.68-A/2001 by IX Civil Judge Class I, Jabalpur whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction in respect of Khasra No.40/3 and 40/4 situated at village Manegaon Tehsil and District Jabalpur has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that the original plaintiff Budhua @ Teerath Prasad filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.40/3 area 0.032 hectare and Khasra No.40/4 area 0.162 hectare situated at village Manegaon Tehsil and District Jabalpur and the defendants have no right over the same. A permanent injunction was also sought that the defendants should not interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The aforesaid suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute and the defendants are trying to encroach upon the said property by dislodging the possession of the plaintiff, hence a notice was also issued to the defendants on 06.10.1995 and subsequently the civil suit was filed.

(3.) After the death of original plaintiff Budhua @ Teerath Prasad, the legal representatives of Budhua also amended the plaint to the effect that their father Budhua had never execute the sale deed on 05.10.1966 and in the revenue records the name of the plaintiff has continued to be reflected. It is further pleaded that the alleged purchaser of the property Daulat Ram Grover never existed and no sale deed was executed in his favour by the plaintiff and this fact was also suppressed by the defendants in their earlier written statement but subsequently introduced by way of amendment in their pleadings. Thus it was stated that the defendants have no claim over the suit property and the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit land.