MELA VIJAY DASHMI SABHA Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's regular second appeal, against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge affirming in appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court by holding the order of dismissal of the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit against defendants No. 1 to 8 for a declaration to the effect the Plaintiff society is owner is possession of the land measuring 22 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 110 since the year 1982-83 and the sale deed No. 348 dated 4.5.1987 is illegal, void and inoperative against the rights of the Plaintiff with a consequential relief that defendants be restrained from interfering in its possession over the suit land. It is further case of the plaintiff that this land has been exclusively used by Ram Lila Sabha for the purpose of celebrating Dashmi occasion and also arranging a fair according to Hindu Vaishnovite Santanik Custom. It is in view of this long user that this Khasra number was reserved as Ram Lila ground during the Consolidation of Holdings in the village, which is also reflected in the revenue record. Since the possession of the Plaintiff is for more than 12 years without any interruption and thus in the alternative plaintiff has become owner by way of adverse possession. It has been further stated that since the land belongs to the Plaintiff society but there are numerous proprietors of other property and it is not possible for the Plaintiff to implead all the persons, so an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed along with Plaint.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 in his written statement claimed that he is full owner in possession of the suit property but is of unsound mind for the last 40 years and defendant No. 1 who is stated to have sold the suit land on behalf of defendant No. 2 has no authority in law and so the sale made by defendant No. 1 is illegal and void. Defendant No. 8 appeared in pursuance to the notice of application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and alleged that he is one of the co-sharers of the suit land. In his written statement he denied that defendant No. 2 was owner of the suit land or he was competent to transfer the same. According to defendant No. 8, defendant No. 2 was, in fact, neither a proprietor nor a co-sharer in the Shamlat land.