JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2022 passed by Second District Judge, Rewa in RCA No.16-A/2016 arising out of order dated 30.01.2016 passed by V Civil Judge, Class-II, Rewa in RCS No.177-

A/2009.

2. The appellant are plaintiffs who have lost their case before the First Appellate Court.

3. Facts of the present case in short are that, the plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that the father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 Heeralal Mishra was the real brother of Ramlal Mishra husband of the plaintiff No.3. The plaintiffs were the owner of Khasra Nos.281/1 area 2.40 acre, 285/1 area 1.63 acre, 285/2 area 1.63 acre, 286 area 1.36 acre, 287/1 area 2.70 acre 287/2 area 2.70 acre situated in village Pahariya, Tahsil – Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa. It was mentioned that Survey No.288 was recorded as Government land, but it was in possession of the plaintiff.

4. A lease was granted to Heeralal Mishra by permission dated 18.08.1997 for planting trees and from thereafter the plaintiffs are in possession and are cultivating the land. It was further claimed that the plaintiffs had planted 2,000 trees of Eucalyptus, Neem, Amla, Mango, Sheesham and Bamboo etc. Since, some of the residents of village Pahariya were having ill will against the plaintiffs, therefore they are trying to take possession of the land in dispute. The defendants No. 1 to 18 are making an attempt to construct house on the part of the land in dispute. When the plaintiffs tried to stop them, then they started picking quarrel. Accordingly, a complaint was made to S.H.O., Raipur Karchuliyan, Tahsildar, S.D.O, as well as the Collector. The plaintiffs have every right to stop the defendants from cutting the trees. The plaintiffs have given a notice under Section 80 of CPC. In spite of that, defendant No.19 did not take any action. As a result, the defendants No.1 to 18 are being encouraged and accordingly the suit was filed for permanent injunction.

5. The defendants No.1 to 18 filed their written statement claiming that the land in dispute was Government land. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the same. The Plaintiffs have never planted 2,000 trees. The bore was dug at the government’s expenses. The defendants No.1 to 18 are landless person and they are residing on the land in dispute after constructing their house. The plaintiffs wants to evict the defendants No.1 to 18. The defendants had also lodged a report in Police Station, Raipur Karchuliyan on the basis of which criminal cases were registered against the Rambhuvan, Dinesh and Heeralal. In fact, the plaintiffs want to dispossess the defendants No. 1 to 18.

6. Defendant No.19 filed his written statement separately and claimed that the plaintiffs have illegally taken possession of the land in dispute by planting trees and thus they have encroached upon the said land. If the plaintiffs were of the view that the defendants No.1 to 18 are creating nuisance then they should have lodged a report. It was claimed that the plaintiffs have illegally planted the trees and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

8. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants No.1 to 18 filed an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree.

9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that by order dated 18.08.1997 (Ex.P/1), the Tahsildar had granted permission to Heeralal Mishra to plant trees on Khasra No.288 area 1.740 hectares. No lease was granted in respect of the land in dispute but by the order dated 18.08.1997, the Tahsildar had granted permission to plant tre