JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26/08/2019 passed by Third Additional Judge, Sidhi to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sidhi (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No.75A/2019 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31/10/2018 passed by First Civil Judge Class-1, Churhat, District – Sidhi (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.23A/2017.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who has lost the case from both the Courts below.

3. The plaintiff/ appellant had filed a suit for declaration of title as well as for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendants are the resident of village Taktaiya and belong to different caste. Khasra No.2178 (New No.3176) area 0.02 hectare land is the disputed property. It was the case of the plaintiff that she had purchased the said land by an unregistered sale-deed dated 09/09/1990 for a consideration amount of Rs.95/- and from the date of the sale-deed, she is in possession of the same. The seller Natthu Nai has already expired 15 years back and his legal representatives are defendants No.2 to 9 who in a clandestine manner got a lease issued in their favour and thus the suit for declaration of title as well as for permanent injunction was filed.

4. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments and it was claimed that the defendant No.1 is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. The unregistered sale-deed dated 09/09/1990 is a forged document.

5. The Trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence of both the parties dismissed the suit.

6. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed.

7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants have duly proved the execution of unregistered sale-deed dated 09/09/1990. Both the Courts below have committed material illegality by disbelieving the same and accordingly, proposed the following substantial questions of law:- <br/>

“(i) Whether the findings recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court as far as it relates to sale dead is perverse looking to the facts and circumstances of the case?

(ii) Whether the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court committed an error of law while holding that the appellants do not acquire the ownership and title on the basis of the sale dead produced before the trial court?

(iii) Whether the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court committed an error of law while rejecting the civil suit and disbelieving the sale dead on the ground of non-registration and none-notarization?

(iv) Whether the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court committed an error of law while not granting the injunction though gave the specific finding of possession in favour of the appellants?

(v) Whether any person can be dispossess without following the due process of law from his peaceful possession the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court overlooked this aspect and settled principal of law says that no person can be dispossess without following the due process of law and while denying the decree of declaration and permanent injunction the learned court below committed a grave error.

(vi) Other substantial question of law which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be formulated?”

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

9. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has duly proved the execution of unregistered the sale-deed dated 09/09/1990 (Ex.P/14). It is true that the attesting witnesses, namely Brajbhan Patel and Molai Sahu were not examined b