The boundaries mentioned in the sale deed prevail in case of a discrepancy with regard to the identity of the land, and executing a rectification deed is important if wrong boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol to the Court of District Judge Beohari in RCA No.42/2019 arising out judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-1, Beohari, District Shahdol in RCS No.36-A/2017.

2. The appellants are the defendants who have lost their case before the First Appellate Court.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short, are that the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are the real brothers. Defendant No.2/appellant No.2 is a Sarpanch and has a protection of local politician and therefore, he is creating dispute. The plaintiff has purchased the land in dispute from the defendant No.1 by registered sale deed dtd. 30/12/2008 for a consideration of Rs.60, 000.00 and thereafter he constructed a boundary wall. He is in possession of the same from the date of execution of sale deed. The name of the plaintiff was also mutated accordingly. On 26/6/2017 when the plaintiff started raising construction on the said plot, then the defendant No.1 came on the spot and forcibly stopped the work. On the next day, the defendant No.1 claimed additional amount of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 and also threatened that he would not allow the plaintiff to raise construction. An FIR was also lodged on the 28/6/2017 but no action was taken by the Police. On 14/7/2017, the defendant No.2 alongwith his family damaged a part of the boundary wall and also took away two trolleys of gravel. FIR was lodged but no action was taken. In spite of the fact that defendant No.1 has alienated the property still he is challenging the title of the plaintiff and accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statements and claimed that the Khasra No.623/1 is a Government land on which the ancestral house of defendant No.2 is situated. The plaintiff is raising construction over Khasra No.623/2/2 area 0.303 hectares. The defendant No.1 was the owner of Khasra No.623/8/2 area 0.304 hectares. Taking advantage of the illiteracy of the defendants wrong boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed. The defendants No.1 and 2 are in possession of their respective piece of land as per their mutual partition. The land, which was shown in the sale deed was never alienated by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff was never placed in possession of the same and accordingly it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

5. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence dismissed the suit.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.

7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the First Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that wrong boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed and therefore, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the same and accordingly proposed the following substantial questions of law:-

"(i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on the finding of fact could be disturbed by the First Appellate Court ?

(ii) Whether, the appellant/defendant could sell the land in question since the defendant/appellant was not in possession of land in question and how could he sell that portion of land?

(iii) Whether the disputed area of land in question is a government land as the defendant never sold that portion of land ?

(iv) Whether the boundary (Chauhaddi) i.e., land in question wrongly recorded in the sale deed Annexure A and whether the finding recorded by First Appellate Court is against the revenue record hence, illegal and perverse ?"

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

9. It is well established principle of law that when th