PREMA RAM Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, for therethrough setting aside the entries, borne in the revenue record, and, appertaining to the suit kahsra numbers. The learned trial Court non suited the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being aggrieved therefrom, hence, instituted Civil Appeal No. 11/13 of 2005/1995, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, thereon, a, verdict rather decreeing, the plaintiffs' suit rather stood rendered. The defendants, through, the instant RSA, constituted before this Court, strive to beget reversal, of the verdict pronounced, upon, the afore civil appeal, by the learned first appellate Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that initially the suit was instituted by Ramu before the learned trial Court declaration and, permanent injunction alleging therein that he was owner in possession of land measuring 8.1 bighas, being  ? share of land measuring 32/2 bighas, situated in village Dadhol. Defendant Santu (now deceased) had no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendant Santu had illegally started interference with possession of the plaintiff Ramu over the suit land. It was further pleaded that in case the defendant had got any mutation attested in his favour qua the suit land, the same was result of fraud and the plaintiff was not bound by the same. The plaintiff had requested defendant Santu to admit his claim over the suit land, but the defendant Santu did not concede to his request. Hence the suit.

(3.) Deceased defendants Santu contested the suit and filed written statement to the plaint, wherein, he had averred that the plaintiff had gifted the suit land in his favour by way of a gift deed of 23.11.1967, registered on 22.12.1967. The possession of suit land was delivered to defendant Santu. Mutation was also attested in his favour on 29.2.1968. Thus, the defendant Santu had become owner of the suit land on the basis of a valid gift made by the plaintiff in his favour. In nutshell the defendant Santu had refuted the entire case of the plaintiff. He had also alleged that the plaintiff Ram was estopped from filing the suit, and, that the suit was not maintainable.