SURAJ THAKUR SON OF SUBA THAKUR Vs. RAM CHANDRA MISTRI SON OF ADAYA MISTRI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOITHAHA, P.O.RAI KARARIYA.DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by defendants 1st party -respondents 1 st set -appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below.

(2.) The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 214 of 1990 (32/1991) which was filed by the sole plaintiff - appellant -respondent 1st Set for the following reliefs: - (a) For declaration that Schedule - Ill property was the purchased property of the plaintiff who was the absolute owner thereof. (b) For declaration that sale deed dated 22.2. 1955 executed by Hira Thakur in favour of Subba Thakur (predecessor of defendants 1st Set) was fraudulent, void, showy and illegal and was never acted upon and was not binding upon the plaintiff, (c) For declaration that sale deed dated 3.7.1990 executed by Ram Sakal Thakur in favour of defendant no. 1 was forged, fraudulent, showy and without consideration and possession and not binding upon the plaintiff. (d) For confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over Schedule -Ill land. (e) For permanent injunction restraining defendant 1st Party from entering into any part of Schedule -Ill property and also from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and from cutting away trees standing thereon. (f) For recovery of cost of suit. (g) Any other relief to which the plaintiff is deemed entitled.

(3.) THE said suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3 (defendants 1st Party). After considering the respective ' claims of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues for deciding the title suit: - (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff got cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the sale deed dated 22.2.1955 executed by Hira Thakur in favour of Subba Thakur forged, illegal and inoperative? (iv) Is the sale deed dated 3.7.1990 executed by Ram Sakal Thakur in favour of defendants 1st Party showy? (v) Has the plaintiff got title to the land given in Schedule -Ill of the plaint? (vi) Is the plaintiff entitled to confirmation of possession? (vii) Is the plaintiff entitled to an order of injunction restraining the defendants from coming over the suit land? (viii) To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled?