RAMAKISHAN & ANR Vs. TARA CHAND & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) s civil second appeal has been preferred by appellant-defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Civil Regular First Appeal No.02/2010, whereby the appeal filed by the appellantdefendants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Didwana, District Nagaur in Civil Original Suit No.11/2006 was affirmed, whereby the learned trial court had decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondentplaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned trial court for taking possession and permanent injunction against the appellantdefendants with the averments that the plaintiff Tara Chand is having a house in Village Nimod. A patta of the same was issued by the Gram Panchayat Nimod in the name of Jeevan Ram and the plaintiff purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 09.04.2011 from Jeevan Ram, who adopted plaintiff Tara Chand as son, thus, he is having peaceful possession of the property, but the appellant-defendants in connivance with each other forcibly took the possession of the property on 05.09.2005 while assaulting the respondent-plaintiff, for which a case bearing FIR No.88/2005 was registered and during the course of the investigation, the property in question came to the possession of the respondent-plaintiffs on intervention by Dy. Superintendent of Police, therefore, the respondent-plaintiffs prayed for restraining the appellant-defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiffs over the property in question and further prayed for possession of a shop 'Y' shown in the map from defendants.

(3.) The appellant-defendants filed written statement and denied the averments of the suit and stated that the defendant No.3 is brother of Jeevan Ram and the defendant No.1 and 2 are nephew of Jeevan Ram and they have possession over the property in question alongwith Jeevan Ram, whereas the plaintiff has no possession over the property in question and if any sale deed was executed in connection with the property in question, the same shall be null and void in view of the legal right of the defendants, therefore, the appellant-defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.