The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving right, interest, and possession through admissible evidence and highlights the limited scope of appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. The appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-2-2005 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 91-A/04 reversing the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by 7th Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No. 119-A/02, vide dated 20-7-2003.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being plaintiff has filed a suit against the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 9 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 93 area 1.44 acre situated at Village Mungalia.

3. As per averments of the plaintiff the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had purchased the aforesaid land with some other land total area 38.23 acres from its earlier Bhumiswami Kashiram vide registered sale deed dated 28-4-1965. The same was executed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only by virtue of it the same was mutated in their name in the revenue record since then they are remained in possession of it. The appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 or their predecessors had no right and interest in this property directly or in any other manner. As such they have no right to interfere in the right, interest and possession of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The same was developed by them by digging a well and tube well with installation of a motor pump and taking electric connection but due to mistake the name of appellant was mutated in the revenue record as Bhumiswami in respect of aforesaid survey No. 93, to rectify such mistake they have filed an application in the office of Tehsildar. In which appellant has given their appearance and claimed the property as his own contrary to said registered sale deed. During this period settlement was held in which the aforesaid survey number was changed by new survey Nos. 104 and 105 as mentioned in the Khasra for the year 1998-2001. It was also pleaded that prior to inserting the name of appellant the name of respondent No. 4 Kamran Bee was mentioned in the Khasra, such entries in the name of appellant and respondent No. 4 were ab initio void and contrary to law and by taking advantage of such entries of Khasra the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had trying to dispossess the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from this land. Therefore, the instant suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as said above.

4. The appellant by filing his written statement contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaring the Khasra entries as ab initio void, while for such relief the State of Madhya Pradesh is also a necessary party but the same has not been impleaded as party thus suit was not maintainable. The right, interest and possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 over the disputed land was denied with further contention that same had not been purchased by these respondents from Kashiram. In fact, the aforesaid land was remained in possession of respondent No. 4 from whom the appellant has purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 3-6-2000, since then as Bhumiswami he is in possession of the same. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by taking advantage of some earlier sale deed (in which the aforesaid survey number has been mentioned) wants to dispossess the appellant from his lawful possession they have initiated the suit proceedings on false averments. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have never dug a well or tube well in it and such electric connection was also not taken by them. The entries in the revenue record are legal and correct. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have no authority to interfere in the interest and possession of the appellant. In addition to it, it has also been pleaded that long back said Kashiram and respondent No. 1 had purchased some agricultural land vide registered sale deed dated 28-12-1956 from Smt. Kasturi Bai but by mistake the survey No. 93 was also mentioned in such sale deed the same was rectified later on.