JALALUDDIN Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dtd. 25/11/2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Badi, District Dholpur in Civil Regular Appeal (CIS) No.12/2017, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and affirmed the order and decree dtd. 20/1/2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Badi, District Dholpur in Original Civil Case No.17/2013, by which the application filed by the respondents-defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which it was stated that disputed property is a house, which is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and situated at Mohalla Gumat Kasba Badi, District Dholpur. In the eastern side of this house there is a public way, in the western side house of Jugurua, in the northern side house of Kallu Teli and Jalaluddin and in the southern side house of Horilal Nai are situated. It was also stated that house in question is situated in Khasra No.1089 Rakba 7 Biswa at town Badi and initially father of the defendants Haripal was the owner of the property. Haripal had executed a sale deed on 19/12/1979 in favour of Horilal Nai and sold 1/3rd share of above Khasra. After that, Horilal Nai constructed house and living there. After that, Haripal sold remaining 2/3rd part of the land to Munni Devi, Rajendra Singh, Brijendra Singh through registered sale deed dtd. 11/6/1981. After that, those persons have executed a sale deeds in favour of Gokula, Kashiram and Puran and sold their share to them. Gokula, Kashiram and Puran also sold the property to Subrati and Aaseen through registered sale deed dtd. 29/9/1999. Subarati and Aaseen sold the property to the plaintiff. So, registered sale deed dtd. 15/10/2005. Father of the defendants had no share in the disputed property but defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

(3.) Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that disputed property is agricultural property. So, present suit is not maintainable.