LAWS(RAJ)-2014-7-49

BHAIRU LAL Vs. SOHANI

Decided On July 03, 2014
BHAIRU LAL Appellant
V/S
SOHANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Gangapur, District Bhilwara, whereby the suit filed by the appellants -plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Camp Gangapur, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2004 has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiffs -appellants filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 3.6.1994 with the averments that the plaintiffs alongwith defendant No. 8 purchased the suit property from defendant No. 1 Smt. Kesar, who executed a sale deed on 16.3.1993 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/ - and the sale deed was registered and possession was handed over, ever since the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. The vendor Smt. Kesar has no male issue and has only two daughters, who are staying at their in -laws' place; it was alleged that the defendant No. 4 grand daughter of the vendor on 1.5.1994 alongwith defendants No. 5 to 7 with an intention to dispossess the bonafide purchasers and to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs tried to dispossess them and therefore, an application was made to police station Gangapur. Again on 29.5.1994, they indulged in the same activity and the defendants can dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property and therefore, issuance of permanent injunction was necessary against them and if during the pendency of the suit, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs, then mandatory injunction be issued for handing over possession of the suit property. It was claimed that the cause of action arose on 1.5.1994 and 29.5.1994.

(3.) THE trial court framed as many as eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants one witness was examined and one document was got executed.