JUDGMENT :

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard.

1. The appellants / defendants have filed this first appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2017 passed by the District Judge, Umariya (MP) in Civil Suit No. 4-a/16, whereby the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff namely Ravi Shankar Sharma against the appellants / defendants for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction has been allowed and the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff has been decreed in his favour according to para 28 of the impugned judgment.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.2307/1ka/1ka/1ka ad-measuring 0.274 hectares situated in village Chandiya, General No.205, Patwari Halka Chandiya No.9, R.N.M. Chandiya, Tahsil Chandiya, District Umariya (MP), on the ground that he is the exclusive owner and possession holder of the land in question. The said land was purchased by him from one Tarabai by registered sale deed dated 25.06.2009 in total consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and thereafter, the possession was handed over to the respondent / plaintiff and his name was also mutated in the revenue records vide Namantaran Panji No.21 dated 22.08.2009.

3. Thereafter, Tahsildar, Chandiya conducted demarcation of the land in question wherein notice was issued on 13.06.2009 and after receiving the said notice on 14.06.2009 the respondent / plaintiff appeared before the authority concerned and in his presence, demarcation was completed and final order was issued on 23.03.2010 and on the said date, for the first time, the respondent / plaintiff came to know that in the part of the land ad-measuring 0.042 hectare bearing khasra no.2307/1ka/1ka/1ka, Kailodevi Government Hospital is situated. On 02.12.2009 and 25.06.2010 registered notices were issued to the appellants / defendants by the respondent / plaintiff and the same were served to them but no proceeding was done by the appellants regarding the land in dispute and the vacant possession was also not handed over to the plaintiff.

4. Learned trial Court issued notices and consequent upon receiving the notices, appellants filed their separate written statements denying the contentions of the plaintiff and it was stated that the Hospital in question is situated from last sixty years over the disputed land and the plaintiff / respondent was well aware of the said fact. It was also contended in the written statement that the respondent had not made it clear that from what sources, he had purchased the land from Tarabai. It was also not made it clear that how many sale deed were executed by Tarabai in respect of the land bearing khasra no. 2307. Tarabai was necessary party but she was not made party to the suit. It was also stated in the written statements that in the revenue records from 1959-60, land in question was recorded as abadi Hospital land ad-measuring 0.324 hectare. Some entries were recorded in the revenue records of 1974-75 to 1978-79 and thereafter, 1979-80 to 1983-84. In the revenue entries of 1983-84 to 1988-89 and 1989-90 to 1992-93 and the revenue entries are in favour of the government hospital.

5. However, on the basis of rival pleadings, learned trial court framed as many as six issued and called parties to adduce their evidence. after recording evidence, learned trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff / respondent and passed the impugned judgment and decree whereby the respondent has been declared owner of the land in question and the appellants herein have been directed to hand over vacant possession.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants / defendants challenged the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the same is not in consonance with law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Further, learned Trial Court has erre