ORDER

1. Present second appeal under section 100 and 101 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri, (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No.27/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri, in Civil Suit No.31-A/2015 by which the suit of appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. The order relates to an application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 26 rule 9 of CPC.

2. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed this suit stating therein that they are the owners of land in Village Aharwanpur, Tehsil Khaniyadhanna, District Shivpuri, bearing Survey No. 930, area 2.22 hectares . On this land 6 rooms are built. Three out of six rooms shown in the map annexed with the plaint, surrounded in red ink and the land on which the rooms are built is the disputed property/land. The said map annexed as 'A' is a part of the plaint. The said disputed property is adjacent to the Survey No.929 Area 0.50 Hectare which belongs to Defendant No. 1. The boundaries of both the survey numbers remained the same since the time of their ancestors and both the sides are in possession accordingly. The entire land of survey number 930 including the said disputed land is the ancestral property of plaintiffs and is under their possession.

3. The further pleading is that about a year ago, while constructing the said six rooms on the said disputed land for keeping the agricultural goods and crops etc. and for the security of the farm, the defendant no. 1-Pappu raja, got the demarcation done on the same spot. The construction was with the knowledge and consent of the said defendant. The plaintiffs have further pleaded in their plaint that after the construction, the defendant No.1 taking advantage of plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 being illiterate and belong to schedule caste grab the land under section 250 of M.P.L.R.C. in which after investigation, the unauthorized encroachment done by mistake on each other's land was removed from the spot and since there was no encroachment and therefore, matter was resolved vide order dated 9.9.2014.

4. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 1 in collusion with Patwari again filed an application before the Tehsildar and proposed that the action should be taken against the plaintiffs for sending them to civil jail and in this regard, Sub Divisional Officer, issued a notice to plaintiffs for sending them to civil jail. Against which a writ appeal is pending. However the appellate authority is not deciding the appeal. Thereafter on 30.8.2015, the defendant No.1 came on the field and threatened the plaintiffs to evict from the disputed property. Thereafter, in the compelling circumstances, plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration that the notice of revenue authority/S.D.O. for civil jail dated 23.9.2017 be declared as null and void and injunction against the defendant be granted to restrain them to evict the plaintiffs under the said notice.

5. That, defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying all averments in the plaint and stated that all the old boundaries are altered by the plaintiffs and same has been gathered with proceeding initiated under section 250 of MPLCR therefore plaintiffs have no concerned with the disputed land therefore pray for dismissal of suit.

6. That, defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint as all the proceeding concluded as per the provision of law therefore pray for dismissal of the suit.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues in the matter and parties lead evidence to prove the said issues in their favour. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence made available on record, vide its judgment and decree dated 8.12.2017 dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

8. Being aggrie