DEVI RAM Vs. SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2012 passed by the Court of IV ADJ, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 9A of 2011, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge Class 1 Morena in Civil Suit No. 4A of 2009 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the disputed land was dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as "plaintiff and the respondents No. 1 to 4 as "defendants .

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the disputed land is in possession of the defendants No. 1 to 3 and one Rewati Bai executed a registered sale deed dated 30.5.1984 in respect of Survey No. 1024 area 5 Bigha and 14 Bisvva (hereinafter would be referred to as "disputed land ") in favour of defendant No. 4 Dashrath.

(3.) The facts in brief of the plaint are that the land bearing Survey No. 1024 area 5 Bigha 14 Biswa, 1041/1 area 4 Bigha 13 Biswa, 1047 area 4 Bigha 7 Bisvva, 1048 area 5 Biswa situated at Village Mirdhan District Morena and after settlement, new Survey Numbers are 1030, 963, 1023, 958 and 959. Out this total land, one Mahila Rewati was owner of share and rest of the land was of the ownership of father of the plaintiff Balmukund and father of 80 M.P. defendants No. 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No. 3 and recorded in their names. The said Mahila Rewati executed a registered sale deed 28.6.1972 in favour of the plaintiff of her share and handed over the possession of the same to him and since then, the plaintiff has been cultivating it. But thereafter, the defendants No. 1 to 4 started obstructing the plaintiff, hence, the plaintiff inquired the matter about his mutation from the revenue Patwari showing him the sale deed dated 28.6.1972 but the plaintiff came to know that the defendants had illegally got the disputed land mutated in their name. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit No. 11A of 2004 in which, written statement was filed. In that suit, the defendants assured the plaintiff that they would not interfere in future in possession of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff did not appear in the suit and hence, it was dismissed on 7.12.2006 in his absence. But again the defendants started interfering in possession of the plaintiff of the disputed land, hence, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No. 1 to 4 for the relief stated herein above.