Order On Board

Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 15A/2016 in the matter of Smt. Pushpadevi Awasthi vs. Shri Ved Dev Verma and others, whereby the learned trial Court has allowed and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree in the interest of justice.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted Civil Suit No. 15A/2016 before the Court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, seeking declaration, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs. The plaintiff sought declaration that three registered sale deeds dated 09.12.2013, allegedly executed by defendant No.4/respondent No.2 in favour of defendants No.1, 2 and 3 (present appellants No.1, 2 and 3), are null and void, illegal and not binding upon her rights. The plaintiff further claimed that the suit property bearing Khasra No. 2017/1/24 admeasuring 5000 sq. ft. (0.045 hectares), situated at Club Para, Tahsil and District Mahasamund, is owned and possessed by her, and prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession. The case of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was that she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit land, which she had received through a registered gift deed dated 16.04.1993 executed in her favour by one Bharat Lal Sahu, who had earlier acquired the property through a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1970 from defendant No.4/respondent No.2. It was pleaded that ever since the execution of the gift deed, the plaintiff has remained in peaceful possession of the land, having constructed a boundary wall and installed a gate over the same. It was further alleged that since the plaintiff was residing at Raipur, defendant No.4/respondent No.2 and defendant No.5/appellant No.4 started harassing her with an intention to grab the suit land by instituting false cases and creating obstructions. The plaintiff further pleaded that earlier litigation between the parties culminated in her favour, wherein her title and possession over the suit land were upheld by the Civil Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Despite such findings, the defendants, in collusion with revenue authorities, allegedly prepared forged maps and documents showing the suit land as part of Khasra No. 2017/5/1 and executed three sale deeds dated 09.12.2013 in favour of defendants No.1, 2 and 3 (appellants herein). It was specifically alleged that defendant No.4/respondent No.2, acting through defendant No.5/appellant No.4 and in connivance with a revenue officer, namely Govardhan Rao Ingole, fabricated documents and executed the impugned sale deeds in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also initiated criminal proceedings and lodged complaints alleging offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy, wherein cognizance was taken by the competent court. It was further pleaded that despite pendency of earlier litigation and stay orders granted by revenue authorities, the defendants continued to file mutation applications on the basis of the impugned sale deeds and attempted to get their names recorded in revenue records by suppressing material facts. Several such mutation proceedings were either stayed, dismissed or rejected by the competent authorities. The plaintiff asserted that the cause of action arose initially on 09.12.2013 with execution of the impugned sale deeds and continued thereafter with subsequent attempts of the defendants to interfere with her rights. The defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing written statement, denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. It was