RAMAYAN PRASAD Vs. INDRAKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1993 passed by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Civil Appeal No.27-A/1984, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.2.1984 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class I, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.455-A/1983 whereby respondents/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, possession and perpetual injunction for restraining to interfere in the possession of the suit premises has been decreed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that on 20.7.1977, original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction before the trial court against the respondents with regard to the suit land bearing Khasra No.71, area 0.36 acres, Khasra No.73 area 0.65 acres, situate at village Gulbaspur, Tahsil Churhat, District Sidhi, stating that grandfather of the appellant Laxmi Narayan was the Bhoomiswami of the land and after his death, his son Ramgulam father of the appellants became the Bhoomiswami of the land and Ramgulam was missing more than seven years and none heard about him that whether he was alive or not. Deeming him to be dead, the appellants, being the heirs of Ramgulam sold the aforesaid land to the father of plaintiff nos.3 to 5 Mukutdhari for Rs. 216/- on 28.5.1950 and the sale deed was executed and possession was delivered. Mukutdhari purchased the aforesaid land as a property of Joint Hindu Family of plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land and have joint possession. There was a dispute between plaintiffs and defendants with regard to mutation in revenue record which was disposed of in favour of the appellants/defendants by the Board of Revenue on 18.12.1970 but it was not in the notice of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the suit premises since 28.05.1950 as owners, therefore, also on the ground of adverse possession, they accrued title on the land before filing the suit. The appellants/defendants interfered in the possession of the plaintiffs, therefore, instant suit has been filed for declaration of title and possession on the land and perpetual injunction to restrain appellants/defendants to interfere in the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs.

(3.) Appellants/Defendants have filed their written-statement contending that they never executed the sale deed and when their father was alive, they had no title over the property, therefore, question of transferring the suit land by sale deed does not arise and no title and interest occurred by the so called sale deed. The appellants/defendants are in possession of the suit land and the suit is time barred, proceeding for mutation was pending from 1961 and the Board of Revenue decided it finally by its order dated 18.12.1970 which was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit for declaration is time barred and on the suit land, the plaintiffs have no adverse possession, therefore, suit be dismissed.