ORDER

Appellants/Plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.28A/2018 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.3A/2016 by Civil Judge, Class-I, Nagda, District Ujjain (MP).

(2)The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and nullification of sale deed dated 10.09.2014 in favour of the plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 in relation to the agricultural land bearing survey no.691 rakba 069 hectares situated at Gram Pipliya Molu, Tehsil Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) and has stated that she is the owner and possession holder of land in question and that she has purchased the land from one Urmila on 13.01.2010 by registered sale deed and Urmila had purchased the land from Rugnath through registered sale deed dated 14.01.2009. This land was mutated in the name of Rugnath in the revenue record and after Rugnath it was mutated in the name of Urmila and now it was in the name of Plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs pleaded that defendant No.2 Jakir had filed the civil suit before the Civil Judge, Nagda, which was dismissed on 17.08.2013. Thereafter, Jakir executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 10.09.2014 which is Ex.P/17 without having any right and the defendant No.1 got mutated the record in the revenue record, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the original owner Hasmat Khan had executed the agreement to sell in favour of Rugnath on 31.05.1984 and thereafter the Hasmat Khan has no legal right in respect of the same, so the plaintiffs have the right or title by way of registered sale deed. The defendants are interfering her ownership in the suit land so prays for declaration and injunction against the defendants and nullification executed in favour of defendant No.1 and 2.

(3)The appellants filed their written statement before the trial court and has denied the averments made in the plaint.

(4)The trial court has framed the issue and after recording the evidence of both the parties has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

(5)Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellants/plaintiffs has filed the first appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. He further submits that both the courts below have committed grave error in dismissing the suit and appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. Thus, on the basis of above grounds, substantial question of law arises for consideration in second appeal and prays that appeal be admitted for final hearing.

(6)I have heard counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and have perused the records of the case with due care.

(7)From the perusal of records of both the courts below, it is apparent that it is a case of concurrent findings of facts i.e. both the Courts below have dismissed the suit/appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

(8)On going through the trial court record, it appears that the plaintiffs had filed the civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and nullification of sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, therefore the burden lies upon the appellants/plaintiffs to prove that she was the owner of land in question by way of registered sale deed. The plaintiffs pleaded in his pleadings that original owner of the suit land is Hasmat Khan who executed agreement to sell in favour of Rugnath on 31.05.1984 by way of agreement to sell and after the death of Hasmat Khan, Rugnath was the t