IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that boundaries shown in the sale deeds prevail over the measurement, and demarcation reports carry presumptive value of correctness unless rebutted. The court also highlighted the duty of the court to honor its own orders.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Durg passed in Civil Suit No.48-A/2014, whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. (i) The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants/plaintiffs are the real brothers. They had purchased a plot bearing Khasra No.2767/2, area admeasuring 0.02 Hectares i.e. 38x60=2280 sq. ft. by a registered sale deed dated 05.02.2001 (Ex-P/6) from Pundlik. The surrounding of the plot was also shown in the sale deed and adjacent to the plot, two feet lane was remaining and one house of Nana Keshav Rao Singhote was shown to be as identification mark. The plaintiffs pleaded that initially the land, which was bearing Khasra No.293/2, was sold by one Kedarnath Chandrakar to Pundlik on 16.07.1979, which was admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. It was further pleaded that Kedarnath who was also owner of Khasra No.293 sold a part of it i.e. Plot No.76 admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. to Nana Singhote. The appellants/plaintiffs purchased Khasra No.2767/2 from Pundlik on 05.02.2001. The area of the plot was 38x60 sq. ft.

(ii) The original seller Pundlik also sold two feet of lane to Nana Keshavrao Singhote. It was pleaded that the property which was purchased by the plaintiffs through sale deed (Ex- P/6) also contains description of the four corners/boundaries as towards north, vacant land of others is shown, towards south, the house of Singhote is shown, towards east, 30 feet unconstructed road (Kaccha Road) is shown and towards west, vacant land is shown.

(iii) The plaintiffs further pleaded that adjacent to their land, two feet lane of 120 sq. ft., which was sold by Pundlik to Nana Keshavrao, is situated. Further it was pleaded that Smt. Suhaga Bai, widow of Kedarnath Chandrakar sold Khasra No.2635/1 to defendants Nos.2 & 3 Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal by a registered sale deed dated 27.11.2012. According to the plaintiffs, when they discovered that the subsequent purchasers were trying to construct the house over the said plot which was belonging to the plaintiffs and was purchased on 05.02.2001, consequently it was objected and before the Revenue Courts, different proceedings were drawn and eventually a suit was filed in the year 2014.

(iv) During the pendency of the civil suit, it was pleaded that the defendants/purchasers Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal started construction over the aforesaid land purchased by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that Suhaga Bai in order to get wrongful gain substituted the area and overlapped which was already sold to the plaintiffs inasmuch as Khasra No.2635/1 of Mauja Kohka and was for road, drain and open land, therefore, criminal conspiracy has been hatched against the plaintiffs. Therefore, by such purchase, the purchasers do not get any right over the said land.

(v) When the construction started, the plaintiffs complained to the Municipal Corporation and though the Municipal Corporation directed the defendant Nos.2 & 3 to stop the construction, but despite the same the defendant Nos.2 & 3 continued with their construction, which persuaded the plaintiffs to file civil suit. The amendment was also carried out in the plaint praying that since construction of the house has been carried out on Khasra No.2767/2, plot No.77 by the defendants Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal during pendency of the suit, the house be demolished and the vacant possession be handed over to the plaintiffs.

(vi) The plaint would show that initially the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but since the construction was carried out during pendency of the suit, amendment was carried out making prayer that the construction of the house be removed by demolition and the plaintiffs be handed the vacant possession of the plot bearing Khasra No. 2767/02, Plot No. 77, as the suit was already valu