SARVI DEVI Vs. RAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 07.11.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1990, affirming judgment, decree dated 31.10.1990 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class,Ghumarwin, in Case No. 45 -1/1987.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Gandhi, predecessor in interest, of appellants regarding land comprised in Khasra No. 81, measuring 2 -11 bighas and Khasra No. 68/1 measuring 2 -15 bighas, situate in village Badi Bhagot, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The pleaded case of the respondent is that Gandhi had sold the suit land to him for consideration of Rs. 2,500/ -. He paid Rs. 1,000/ - on 28.11.1966. It was agreed that he would pay Rs. 1,000/ - later on and ˜ 500/ - at the time of mutation. It has also been alleged that title of Gandhi was defective and thereby he could not execute the sale deed and on 21.10.1967 the remaining amount was paid to Gandhi. The revenue entries were changed in favour of respondent. It has been alleged that respondent is owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 28.11.1966. In alternative, if sale is not proved then he has become owner in possession by virtue of adverse possession as he had been enjoying the suit land since 1966 continuously without interruption.

(3.) THE suit was contested by filing written statement in which preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction and estoppel were taken. On merits, it was denied that the suit land has been sold by Gandhi to respondent. The execution of the agreement was also denied. The possession of the respondent over the suit land was also denied. It has been alleged that respondent got the revenue entries changed in connivance with the revenue staff in absence of Gandhi and when Gandhi came to know about the changed revenue entries, he applied before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ghumarwin, who corrected the revenue entries and Gandhi was shown as owner in possession of Khasra No. 68 min. However, respondent cleverly got executed sale deed with respect to Khasra No. 81 without payment of any amount. Gandhi refused to sign the document and, therefore, he remained in physical possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 81 also. The adverse possession of the respondent on the suit land has been denied.