BANSHI LAL Vs. KALU RAM & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful before both the courts below, appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC').

(2.) The facts, in brief giving rise to this appeal, are that appellant instituted a suit for possession, mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the respondents before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Jaitaran (for short, 'learned trial Court'), inter alia, on the ground that suit property was purchased by him from Birdaram Chockidar by registered sale-deed dated 19th June, 1978. At the time of purchase of the suit property, there was kucha construction on it, which collapsed four years back from institution of the suit, i.e., somewhere in 1992. It is also averred that on 15th June, 1985, the appellant collected building materials at the site, which is still lying there. As regards, respondent-defendants, it is averred in the plaint that they are having no share in the suit property, but unauthorisedly they have roped some obstacles to prevent ingress and egress of the appellant on the suit property. Despite objection raised by the appellant-plaintiff, nothing was done by the respondents and that prompted the appellant to file civil suit for the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) The suit is contested by the respondents. In their written statements, respondents specifically denied any right, title or interest of the appellant on the land in question and further disputed his possession. While referring to the alleged agreement to sale of 1973 by one Birdaram Chockidar, in favour of appellant, it is stated, in the written statement by the respondents, that the same is illegal and unauthorized having no bearing on the rights of the respondents. It is also averred that the said agreement to sale is null and void. As per version of the respondents, the suit property was owned by Laxman and remained in his possession, therefore, being his legal heirs, all the respondents have every right to enjoy the said property. On the positive assertion of the appellant that he is a bona fide purchaser, it is submitted, in the written statement, that his predecessor-in-title was having no right, title or interest on the suit property to transfer it to him. As regards so-called obstruction created by original defendant Laxman, in the written statement, it was pleaded that it was not an obstruction but rather an attempt made by respondent, Laxman, to protest his possession over the suit property long back, which the appellant is not entitled to remove.