ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission.

2. This appeal under section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by defendants 1 and 2 /appellants against the judgment and decree dated 3.09.2022 passed in RCA No. 67 of 2019 by the Ist Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2019 passed in RCS No. 400026/2016 by the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh whereby the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.1 for possession of the suit land and permanent injunction had been decreed and their counter claim for declaration of title and permanent injunction had been dismissed.

3. As per the plaintiff she is the owner of the suit land and defendants 1 and 2 are her neighbors and have forcibly taken possession of the same. Defendants 1 and 2 had instituted an action in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II Narsinghgarh against her which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13.8.2015 for want of evidence after which they have illegally taken possession of the suit land. She instituted proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against defendants 1 and 2 but has been unsuccessful in obtaining possession of the suit land therein hence has instituted the present claim for possession and permanent injunction.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the plaintiff's claim by filing their written statement submitting that on 15.8.1990 plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sale with defendant No.1 with respect to the suit land for a total consideration of Rs. 18,000/- upon receiving earnest money of Rs.1000/-. Thereafter she had received a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in furtherance of the contract and had thus received the entire sale consideration. Defendant No.1 has been in possession of the suit land ever since 15.8.1990 and despite requests by him plaintiff has not executed sale deed with respect to the suit land in his favour. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.PC instituted by plaintiff were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 16.3.2012. In the Civil Suit instituted by defendant No.1 plaintiff had assured him that she would enter into a compromise with him hence he had got the suit dismissed but she has not executed any sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff's claim is barred by time and defendants 1 and 2 have even otherwise acquired title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 also laid a counter claim for declaration of their title to the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their possession over the same. The plaintiff contested the counter claim of defendants 1 and 2 by filing her written statement to the same.

6. The trial Court held that plaintiff has proved that she is the owner of suit land, that defendant No.1 has not proved that plaintiff has sold the suit land to him on 15.8.1990 for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/-, that he has also not proved that he has acquired title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession and that since plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and defendants 1 and 2 have failed to prove their title thereupon, she is entitled for recovery of possession. On such findings plaintiff''s claim was decreed whereas counter claim of defendants 1 and 2 was dismissed. The said judgment and decree have been maintained by the lower appellate Court in appeal having been preferred by defendants 1 and 2.

7. Learned counsel for appellants/defendants 1 and 2 submits that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are illegal and/ or contrary to law. The claim of plaintiff was apparently barred by time and ought to have been dismissed on that count alone. Plea in regard to the claim being barred by time was specifically raised in written statement hence it was imperative for the trial Court to have framed issue thereupon which would have enabled defendants 1 and 2 to lead evidence upon the same