The court affirmed that a decree for specific performance is binding, and execution proceedings initiated within the limitation period are valid, rejecting claims of adverse possession based on revenue court decisions.

JUDGMENT

Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of CPC, the appellant / plaintiff has filed this first appeal calling in question the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2017 passed by VII Additional District Judge, Indore (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.76-A/2012 (old suit No.51-A/2008) dismissing the appellant's / plaintiff's suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

02. The necessary facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated herein with a view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and decree in dismissing the relief of declaration and permanent injunction of suit schedule property requires to be examined by following this appeal.

03. In this judgment for the sake of brevity, I would like to refer to the ranking of the parties as assigned in the plaint presented before the Court. Since there is congruence in mentioning exhibits in judgment of the trial Court, I will refer to the documents as per annexures presented along with this appeal.

04. (i) The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: appellant herein / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration declaring that sale deed executed by defendant No.1 dated 07.05.2008 (12.05.2008) in favour of defendants No.23 and 24 is not binding on the plaintiff and defendants No.20 and 21 and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 and defendants No.23 and 24 not to evict the plaintiff and defendants No.20 and 21 from the disputed land. Further averred that plaintiff and defendants No.20 and 21 (Sushil and Praveen) have jointly purchased the suit land from defendants No.2 to 9, defendants No.20 and 21 do not want to file a suit along with the plaintiff as such they were shown them as defendants No.20 and 21 in Patwari Halka No.13 survey Nos.35, 40 and 41 total area 3.113 hectares. Originally, disputed suit land belonged to two brothers namely Ramzan Khan and Safdar Khan. The said lands were registered in revenue records under their respective names in year 1967-68. The Ramzan Khan sold of his half share i.e. 1.556 hectares (3.85 acres) to defendant No.1 (Manakchand) under agreement of sale dated 23.08.1967. Safdar Khan sold the entire land including the share of Ramzan Khan to late Sitaram's father Bhavan Khati through a registered sale deed dated 27.05.1968 to the extent of 3.113 hectares (7.69 acres). The said Sitaram got the land transferred in his name in revenue records as per law in due course, a case No.2-A/6/67-68 order dated 30.08.1968, the said disputed land was not in possession of Sitaram it was being occupied by Rajaram, Laxminarayan and Balwant, they have been previous beneficiaries of defendant No.1 (Manakchand).

(ii). Defendant No.1 (Manakchand) filed a suit for specific performance of contract to the extent of half share of Ramzan Khan in the disputed land in Civil Suit No.22-A/1972 against Sitaram, Ramzan Khan, Safdar Khan, Shabbir Khan and Ayyub Khan and praying for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 27.05.1968 executed by Safdar Khan, Shabbir Khan and Ayyub Khan in favour of Sitaram. After adjudication, the learned trial Court decreed the suit partly vide judgment dated 29.11.1978 the plaintiff succeeded in the suit for specific performance, further observed in para 47 clause 3 of the judgment that “after execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants No.1 i.e. Sitaram and defendants No.3 to 5 namely Safdar Khan, Shabbir Khan and Ayyub Khan shall have no claim over half of the area of the suit land which has been ordered to be transferred to the plaintiff.” The said sale deed dated 27.05.1968 has not been dec