GHASI Vs. SRIMATI NATTI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been preferred to this Court against the order dated 6.1.1994 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bundi in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 21/1992 whereby the said Appellate Court had rejected the petitioner's appeal while maintaining the order of the trial Court dated 12.10.1993.

(2.) During the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff-petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the property in suit for last over 20 years and the possession is continuous till date. The plaintiff acquired the possession of the property on the basis of a sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 on 14.1.1979 and it has also been contended that lawful consideration had passed on to the respondent as against which the possession was handed over to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.2.1979.

(3.) The property in dispute forms the subject matter of Khasara Number 239 measuring 9 Bishwas situated in village Kapren district Bundi. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for possession against the defendants-non-petitioners in the Revenue Court and the said Suit was decided by the Revenue Court on 5.7.1990. The Revenue Court while disposing of the suit had held that the plaintiff was entitled to take possession of the disputed land in accordance with law. Thereafter a civil suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 1993 claiming that he was entitled to be in possession of the disputed land and if at all he was dispossessed it could only be done by due process of law. An injunction application was filed to the same effect and the interim application was rejected vide order date 12.10.1993. Against the said order an appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge, Bundi and which came to be decided by the Additional District Judge Bundi vide impugned order dated 6.1.1994. The appellate Court while disposing off the appeal and while confirming of the finding of the trial Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in possession in view of the ejectment order having already been passed against him by the Revenue Court and further held that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. The appeal was accordingly rejected.