( 1 ) THE plaintiff appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession on the land in dispute as shown in the plaint map. It was alleged that the disputed land was the house of Mst. Maida, who had executed a sale deed dt. 16-5-1933 in respect of her one pai share in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and since then, the plaintiffs were in possession of the same. It was further alleged that the house collapsed about 10 years back. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were using the land for keeping and drying cowdung etc. and for other similar purposes. It was alleged that when the plaintiff started storing the bricks etc. for constructing a new house over the land in question, the defendants started interfering with the plaintiffs possession and tried to take possession.

( 2 ) THE defendant 1st set contested the suit contending that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land in dispute. The names of the plaintiffs were never recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the sale deed. The house in dispute did not belong to Mst. Maida and her name was never recorded in the village records. The defendant further contended that he had purchased one half pai share of Mst. Maida vide sale deed dated 24-8-1928 and inherited one pai share before the enactment of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The defendant also claimed that he had purchased the share of the daughters of Mst. Maida and was in possession of the disputed land for more than 12 years and that the sale deed filed by the plaintiff did not show that the house belonged to Mst. Maida. It was also alleged that the claim of the plaintiffs was liable to be rejected in view of the decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-1-1972 in consolidation proceedings.

( 3 ) THE defendant 2nd set stated that salim had acquired the disputed land after paying a Nazrana and that they are in possession of the land in question and that no house of Mst. Maida existed on the disputed land and that the sale deed is a forged document. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in dispute nor were they in possession of it and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of a permanent injunction. The trial court further found that no action was taken by the plaintiffs or their father to get their names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the sale deed nor were the plaintiffs in possession of it. The trial court further found that the defendant was not in exclusive possession of the land in dispute.

( 4 ) THE appellate Court also come to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs with costs. The appellate court held that the name of Mst. Maida did not exist in the revenue records and therefore, Mst. Maida had no right to sell the plot to the plaintiffs father. The sale deed dated 16-5-1933 did not confer any right upon the plaintiffs father or upon the plaintiffs. The appellate Court further held that the disputed sale deed did not indicate the exact share of Mst. Maida or the portion of the disputed house that was being sold. The appellate Court held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the disputed house was owned by Mst. Maida. The appellate Court further held that since the original sale deed was not filed, the presumption envisaged under Section 90 of the Evidence Act to the extent that the sale deed was validly executed, being a document more than 20 years also, would not apply in view of Section 90-A (2) of the Evidence Act, which states that the presumption about the validity of the document shall not be made in respect of a document which is the basis of a suit and is relied upon in the plaint. The appellate Court held that proper execution of the sale deed had not been proved by the plaintiffs. The appellate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document