RAMRATAN & ORS Vs. OMPRAKASH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 9/12/2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil First Appeal No.190/2009, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22/7/2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karauli (called hereinafter as 'the Trial Court' for convenience) dismissing the Civil Suit No.31/91(18/2001), filed by the appellants-plaintiffs.

(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit in representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of CPC, seeking declaration to the effect that the lands in question bearing Khasra Nos.631/2 and 634/2 were the Charagah (Gochar) Lands and the said lands were being used by the residents of Village for grazing their cattles, and that the entires made in the revenue record in favour of the respondents-defendants in respect of the said lands be set aside and the sale deeds made in favour of the defendants also be set aside. The appellants-plaintiffs had also sought permanent injunction for restraining the respondents-defendants from causing any obstruction to the villagers for using the said lands for grazing their cattles. It was alleged in the said suit interalia that the said lands were entered as Charagah in the revenue record and were being used for grazing the cattles of the residents of the village as per their customary rights, and were never being cultivated by the Jagirdar Shri Bhuvnendra Rajpal. It was also alleged that the said Jagirdar Shri Bhuvnendra Rajpal had sold out the said ladns on 1/5/1972 in favour of the defendant Prabhulal and the said Prabhulal further sold out the said lands in favour of other defendants by executing a registered sale deed on 28/1/1991. According to the plaintiffs, the Nayab Tehsildar in collusion of the respondents-defendants had wrongly entered the names of the defendants in the revenue record jeopardizing the customary and easementary rights of the villagers.

(3.) The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendant by filing the written statement contending interalia that the Jagirdar having sold the disputed lands to the defendant Prabhulal, the Gram Panchayat, Bajna had attested one mutation in favour of said prabhulal on 24/6/1973, after verifying his possession and cultivation. Thereafter said Prabhulal had sold out the disputed lands to the defendants Ugantidevi and Prahlad through registered sale deed in the year 1991, and since then they were also in possession of the said lands. According to the defendants, Dastoor Gawai was prepared under Section 173 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, in which it was stated that no khatedar will have any right in respect of the said lands. The defendants had also denied that the plaintiffs had any customary rights of grazing the cattles in the disputed lands.