ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 08.08.2023 passed by 4th District Judge, Sidhi, District Sidhi in RCA no.1500256/2016 affirming judgment & decree dtd. 10.08.2016 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.8A/2012 whereby courts below have dismissed appellants/plaintiffs' suit filed simplicitor for permanent injunction in respect of a piece of land admeasuring 1620 sq. ft. alleging it to be a part of land khasra no. 287.

2 . Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the land of survey no. 287 belonged to forefathers of plaintiff 2 and defendants 4-9. As such, plaintiff 2-Ramlal sold a piece of land admeasuring 1620 sq.ft.vide registered sale deed dtd.16.11.2011 (Ex. P/7) to plaintiff 1-Jeevendra Singh and handed over possession, on the basis of which, his name was also mutated and upon raising construction over the plot, the respondents made interference and mutation of the plaintiff 2 was also cancelled vide order dtd. 31.07.2012. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, it was for the defendant/State to prove title over the land, who is claiming title on the premise that forefathers of plaintiffs 2 and defendants 4-9 gave the land area 0.186 hectare to the defendant/State. Learned counsel submits that as the plaintiffs have been found in possession of the suit land, therefore, permanent injunction ought to have been issued against the defendant-State. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State 1-3 & 9 supports the impugned judgment & decree and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the record.

5. Although, originally the land of survey no.287 belonged to forefathers of the plaintiff 2 and defendants 4-9, but courts below have taken into consideration the revenue record in respect of the land of survey no. 287 whereby an area 0.186 hectare has been found to be recorded as road, as such, courts below have held that plaintiffs, who are in illegal possession are not entitled for any decree of permanent injunction. Although after filing of the written statement no evidence has been adduced by the defendant/State but from the documents filed by the plaintiffs themselves before the court, it is clear that there was dispute of title in respect of the land in question, therefore, in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others (2008) 4 SCC 594, the plaintiffs were bound to seek relief of declaration of the tile also, in asbence of which, the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction is not maintainable.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below regarding illegal possession of the plaintiffs and their entitlement for decree of permanent injunction, this court does not find any illegality in the judgment & decree passed by courts below dismissing the suit filed simplicitor for permanent injunction.

7. Resultantly, for want of any substantial question of law, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

8. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off. (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE KPS