JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2022 passed by First Additional District Judge, Seoni in RCA No.49/2018 arising out judgment and decree 15.05.2018 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-2, Seoni in Civil Suit No.179-A/2015.

2. The appellants are the defendants who have lost their case from both the Courts below.

3. The appellant No.1(A) to 1(F) are the LRs. of the original defendant Ashraf Khan.

4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties are Muslim and are governed by Sunni branch. At the time of birth of the plaintiff, from the gifts which were received from the near relatives, the grand father of the plaintiff Rahman Khan purchased the land bearing Khasra No.63/1 old Khasra No.63/4 area 1200 Sq.Ft. land as well as a Kachcha house constructed over it from its owner Mirza Sadiq Beg by a registered sale deed. The aforesaid property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. From the date of purchase of the property, the name of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue records. The defendants did not have any place to reside, therefore, they were granted permission by the plaintiff and his grand father with an understanding that in future they would vacate the house after constructing their own. The house in question consists of 3 blocks. In one block, the plaintiff is residing whereas in the remaining 2 blocks, defendants No. 1 and 2 are residing with the permission of the plaintiff and his grand father Rahman Khan. Now, the family of the plaintiff has increased and, therefore, he is in need of both the remaining blocks for his own residential purposes, therefore, the plaintiff terminated the permission, which was granted to the defendants No.1 and 2 and requested the defendants No.1 and 2 to vacate the premises but the defendants No.1 and 2 are not vacating the same and are unnecessarily creating trouble. It was further pleaded that the defendants without any authority are trying to make alteration and therefore it was pleaded that the plaintiffs is entitled for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from altering the suit premises.

5. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that under the Muslim Law, the parents of the minor are natural guardian and during the lifetime of the parents, no other person can act as a guardian of the minor. It was pleaded that although the plaintiff has claimed that his grand father had purchased the property in dispute in the capacity of his guardian but his parents were alive and therefore, his grand father can never act as his natural guardian. It was claimed that in fact Rahman Khan who is the grand father of the plaintiff has purchased the property in dispute and accordingly had partitioned the same amongst the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The relationship of the defendants with the father of the plaintiff were cordial and therefore only the name of the plaintiff was recorded in the revenue records. The defendants No. 1 and 2 had raised construction on the land which have fallen to their share and they are looking after the said property. The disputed property was also recorded in the name of Rahman Khan in the record of Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff was born on 14.08.1975 whereas the property in question was purchased in the year 1981. The function of Akika is performed within a period of 7 days from the date of birth. However, father of the plaintiff did not have much money, therefore, function of Akika was never performed. The defendants also filed their counter claim claiming that although Rahman Khan had purchased the property in the name of the plaintiff but in fact the mo