YASHODHA DEVI Vs. BHAGTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants No.1 to 6 have filed the present appeal against judgment, decree dated 15.9.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.29 of 1994, reversing judgment, decree dated 22.12.1993 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Bilaspur camp at Ghumarwin in Case No.238-1 of 1992/89.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent No.1 Bhagti has filed a suit for declaration against the appellants and proforma respondents that respondent No.1 is owner in possession of suit land as per her share more specifically described in the plaint. THE sale deed dated 9.2.1976 is wrong, forged and does not affect the rights of respondent No.1, mutation No.180 dated 17.4.1976 is wrong, illegal. THE prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession has also been made.

(3.) IT is also the case of respondent No.1 that she and her mother had never executed any sale deed pertaining to suit land in favour of appellants on 9.2.1976. The sale deed dated 9.2.1976 is wrong, illegal and is based upon forgery and mis-representation. Santokha father of appellants had once obtained thumb impressions of respondent No.1 and her mother on some papers pertaining to land of Gharat (water mill) but no consideration was paid to respondent No.1 and her mother. The mutation No.180 dated 17.4.1976 is wrong, illegal and in-operative over the rights of respondent No.1. The revenue entries showing appellants in possession as owners of the suit land are wrong and illegal. The appellants have no right, title or interest over the suit land. The respondent No.1 came to know about the wrong entries on 15.7.1988 when appellants threatened to dispossess respondent No.1 from the suit land on the basis of false sale deed. IT has been pleaded that cause of action has arisen to respondent No.1 on 15.7.1988.