JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. The appellant/defendant No. 1 has preferred the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4-12-2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Appeal No. 39-A/2003 whereby the First Additional District Judge while allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dated 24-10-2003 passed by the 3rd “Civil Judge, Class-1, in Civil Suit No. 125-A of 2002 dismissed the suit for possession and vacant possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 125-A of 2002.

3. This Court vide its order dated 15.04.2005 has stayed the decree so far as it relates to delivery of possession till the next date of hearing and this Court admitted the appeal vide its order dated 27.08.2015 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the finding of the first appellate Court regarding title of the plaintiff to the suit land is perverse?”

4. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for removing construction of wall, suit property and for possession. The plaintiff has purchased the diverted land bearing Khasra No. 2017/14/19 area 0.02 acres (860) sq. ft. situated at Ranimandir, Mahasamund, Tehsil Mahasamund from Bhansilal. It has been further contended that Nathuram who was father of Bhansilal has purchased one part of property bearing Khasra No 2017/1 from Tiharu for sale consideration of Rs. 550/- through sale deed dated 12-11-1973 in the name of Bhansilal, but during mutation proceeding it has been written as 2014/14/19 by the Patwari instead of Khasra No. 2017/14/19. It has been further averred in the plaint that in the north side of the suit property there is house of J.L. and in the west side of suit property, there is a house of Ghorelal Joshi, in the east side of the suit property there is a house of Vishal in which defendant is residing. As per the boundary prescribed, the land pertains to 2017/14/19 the Khasra number which has been mentioned in the sale agreement 2014/14/19 is not a conclusive proof.

5. Plaintiff has purchased the above mentioned property (suit property) from Bhansailal through registered sale deed. In pursuance of the agreement, the plaintiff has given Rs. 7000/- to Bhansilal on 18-6-1991 and a registered sale deed was executed and when the fact was brought to his notice that khasra number has wrongly been mentioned in the sale deed, he asked Bhansilal to correct it and in pursuance of their discussion, they executed registered correction deed on 12.06.2001. Accordingly, the description of the land has been recorded as Khasra No. 2017/14/19 area measuring 860 sq. ft. On 15-7-2001 defendants illegally entered into the suit premises, put door, constructed the wall and made an attempt to take illegal possession of the suit property by saying that he has purchased the suit property from Chhabiram through registered sale deed on 4-3-1968, Tihuru has sold the property through registered sale-deed in favour of Chhabiram, as such, Chhabiram/ defendant No. 1 has no right to sell the property. On this factual foundation, the plaintiff has filed the suit and prayed that the defendant may kindly be directed to demolish the wall constructed in the suit property and also to grant open possession of place mentioned in the schedule with cost.

6. The defendant has filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint averment, mainly contending that he has purchased the suit property bearing khasra No. 2017/14/19 measuring 860 sq. ft. from Chhabiram. This fact has been proved through revenue record. The averment made in the plaint is hypothetical and not supported by any evidence. In paragraph 5 of the plaint averment, it has been specifically mentioned that because of the correction deed, no right has been accrued in favour of the plaintiff and he has purchased the suit property through unregister