VISHWANATH SINGH Vs. MUNNI BAI KEWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 01/08/2012 passed by I Additional District Judge, District Shahdol in Civil Suit No.08-A/2011, whereby learned ADJ decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat and declared her owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.96/1, area 0.202 hectare situated at village Jhagarha, Tehsil Sohagpur (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land") and directed the appellant/defendant to give possession of the suit land within two months to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over suit land after giving its possession to the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(2.) It is notable here that plaintiff Smt. Munnibai had filed Civil Suit No.08-A/2011 against appellant Vishwanath Singh regarding suit land and also filed Civil Suit No.10-A/2011 regarding another land against Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh on the same ground. Learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and tried them jointly and disposed of both the suits by a common judgement, but appellant Vishwanath Singh, Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh filed two separate appeals i.e. F.A. No.846/2012 and F.A. No.844.2012 respectively against the judgement of the trial Court. So both the appeals are being decided by this Court by the separate judgements. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff of the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The appellant and respondent no.1 shall be referred to as described in the suit.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat filed a Civil Suit No.08-A/2011 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction regarding suit land averring that earlier suit land was owned by her Grand-Father Mangal Kewat. He had two sons Goje Kewat and Sarju Kewat. The name of Goje Kewat's wife was Basanti @ Rani Bai and the name of Sarju Kewat's wife was Phoolbai Kewat. Respondent No.1 is the daughter of Sarju Kewat and Phoolbai Kewat. She further averred that her father Sraju Kewat died in the year 1972-73 when she was aged about 2-3 years. Her mother Phoolbai Kewat died in the year 1971. Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai had no offspring, due to which Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai nurtured her and her marriage was also performed by them. Earlier in the revenue record, the suit land was recorded in the name of Mangal Kewat and after his death said land was mutated in the name of Goje Kewat and his mother Jhini Kewat (widow of late Mangal). Goje Kewat died in the year 1998 and Jhini Kewat died in the year 1986. After the death of Goje Kewat and his wife Basanti @ Rani Bai and plaintiff's father Sarju Kewat, she is the sole owner of the suit land. Defendant Vishwanath Singh wrongly got his name mutated in the revenue record on the suit land, while the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff and she was doing the agricultural work over the suit land. In the year 2007 defendant forcibly occupied the suit land and wrongly obstructed the plaintiff from using the suit land, therefore, she lodged the complaint against him before the competent authority and also filed an application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Tehsildar, Budhar. When plaintiff obtained copies of the revenue record of suit land, she came to know that in the revenue record the name of defendant is recorded as owner on the suit land, therefore, she filed an appeal before the SDO, Sohagpur (case No.11/Appeal/10-11) and vide order dated 27/11/2010 SDO, Sohagpur allowed the appeal and set aside the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar, Budhar and also directed to record the name of plaintiff as owner of the suit land. In the year 2007 defendant forcibly occupied the suit land. So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit land and defendant be directed to give possession of the suit land to plaintiff and an injection be also issued against the defendant that after giving possession of the suit land to plaintiff the defendant would not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over suit land.