UMRAO SINGH Vs. NEERU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants- plaintiffs against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 9/9/2022 passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil First Appeal No.03/2021 (C.I.S. No. 03/2021) titled as "Umrao Singh and Anr. vs. Smt. Neeru Bai", whereby first appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed and Judgment and Decree dtd. 27/7/2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No.07/2014 (C.I.S. No. 1063/2014) titled as "Umrao Singh and anr. vs. Smt. Neeru Bai" dismissing suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, has been affirmed.

(2.) The facts which are germane for the second appeal, in nutshell, are that plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction regarding a plot measuring 50 x 18 square feet totaling to 900 square feet, situated in front of their house at Jhupaghat, Sirohi. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of the plot based on a registered sale deed dtd. 4/4/1955 and stated that plot in question was closed with stone slabs to prevent encroachment. According to the plaintiffs, on 13/2/2014, defendant illegally removed stone slabs, entered the plot, erected a flag and began unauthorised construction of temple like structure, prompting filing of the suit for restraining further construction and removing what was already built. The plaintiffs alleged threats and abusive behavior by the defendant and contended that completion of construction or installation of idols would cause serious legal complications later.

(3.) The respondent-defendant denied all allegations, asserting that disputed plot was her ancestral property, in her family's possession for last 60-70 years and was given to her father long ago. She disputed plaintiffs' sale deed, claimed that the plaintiffs had no title and alleged that they fabricated documents to grab the land. The defendant maintained that access to the plot had always been through her house, that old structures existed on the plot, and that recent construction was only reconstruction on her own land. She also raised legal objections that suit was barred by limitation, beyond pecuniary jurisdiction and not maintainable due to lack of possession by the plaintiffs.