J U D G M E N T

(18/02/2021)

1. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.2.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Sagar in RCA No. 32/2019 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2019 passed by Fourth Civil Judge Class–I, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been decreed in their favour.

2. the mother of respondent No. 2 Padamchand Jain and respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) are the sons of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1(a)

Gagan Jain is the power of attorney holder of respondent No. 2.

3. the grounds that late Sumatrani purchased a piece of land ad-measuring 4000 sq.ft. situated at Khasra No. 48/14 and 48/15, Mauja Makroniya Buzurg Patwari Halka No. 11/72 Tehsil & District Sagar vide registered sale-deed dated 30.3.1992 and Deepachand, husband of Sumatrani and father of respondent No. 2 Padamchand, purchased another piece of land ad-measuring 2000 sq. ft situated at Khasra No. 48/14 and 48/15, Mauja

(2)

Makroniya Buzurg Patwari Halka No. 11/72 Tehsil & District Sagar vide registered sale-deed dated 31.3.1992 from one Sanjeev Jain. They became owners of the said lands, which were mutated in their names. Thereafter, they constructed a boundary wall over it because they were residing out of Sagar. The appellants with intention of usurp the lands of the plaintiffs/respondents in connivance with the revenue employees and Tehsildar without providing any opportunity to the plaintiffs/respondents and even without informing them conducted demarcation vide order dated 14.5.2012 passed in Case No. 27-A/12.

4. Revenue Commissioner, who set aside all those orders because demarcation proceedings were conducted against the law in absence of the plaintiffs/respondents.

5. for declaration of title and permanent injunction whereby learned trial Court found that the ownership over the suit property has not been challenged by the appellants/defendants. The trial Court also considered that the respondents/plaintiffs have not encroached over any portion of the land belonged to the appellants/defendants, hence passed the decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, which reads as under:-

1- cqtqxZ] iVokjh gYdk uacj 11@72 ftyk lkxj fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk uacj 48@14] 48@15 ftlds u, [kljk uacj 48@22 ds jdok 4000 oxZQqV ds LoRo/kkjh Fkh ,oa oknh Øekad 2 inepan tSu ekStk edjkSfu;k cqtqxZ iVokjh gYdk uca j 11@72 ftyk lkxj fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk uacj 48@14] 48@15

ftlds u, [kljk uca j 48@23 ds jdok 2000 oxZQqV ds LoRo/kkjh gSaA

2- lkxj }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 14-5-12] jktLo izdj.k Øekda 10v@70@o"kZ 11&12 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukda 29-9-12 ,oa vqufoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] lkxj }kjk jktLo izdj.k Øekad 142v@70@o"kZ&11&12 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukda 02-06-2014 fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksus ls 'kwU; ?kksf"kr dh tkrs gSA

3- vU; ds ek/;e ls oknhx.k ds fof/kd vkf/kiR; esa gLr{ksi u djsa vkSj u djk,aA

4-

5- ds vuqlkj vFkok izek.k i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij] tks Hkh de gks okn O;;

tkMs + tkosaA

6. the appellants/defendants to interfere in the suit property, which is found in possession of the respondents/plaintiffs.

7. First Appeal bearing R.C.A. No. 32/2019 alleging that Sumatrani has not been examined before the trial Court to prove her title over the suit property. Respondent No. 1(a) Gagan Jain has been examined in her place as the power of attorney holder. On that ground alone the suit was liable to be dismissed but the trial Court ignored all the legal aspects and wrongly passed the decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellants/defendants also alleged that without properly demarcating the suit property, it was not possible to hold that the suit property belongs to the respondents/plaintiffs because the land belongs to the appellants/defendants is adjacent to the suit property.

8. relying the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents and held that the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar while passing the order Ex. P-6 dated 16.1.2015 in Appeal