A suit for declaration is not maintainable without claiming possession, impacting the ownership rights in property disputes.

1. By this common order, Second Appeal No.803/2017 shall also be decided.

2. Both the appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2017 passed by First Additional Judge, Sidhi to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sidhi in RCA No.4 - A / 2017 arising out of judgment and decree dated 21.01.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Class - 1, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.6 - A / 2012.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that, the plaintiff / appellant filed a suit for declaration of title as well as for release of property from the custody of the receiver. The case of the plaintiff / appellant was that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other being the resident of village Kotha. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of late Vishwanath Vishwakarma. Defendant No.3 is the daughter in law of a business man namely Rameshwar Avadhiya. The in - laws of defendant No.3 are rich persons and they are in the habit of grabbing houses and lands of various persons by compelling them to execute sale deeds. Araji No.125 area 0.032 hectare land was allotted to Vishwanath Vishwakarma, the father and husband of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Vishwanath Vishwakarma had constructed a house of 3 rooms on land admeasuring 14x41 sq.ft. The remaining land was left as open. On the northern side of the house, one Kachcha house was also there in which one lady was residing for the last several years. Late Vishwanath Vishwakarma was also claiming himself to be the owner of the Kachcha house and the land, however as per the information of the plaintiff, late Vishwanath Vishwakarma was in possession of the house consisting of three rooms, latrine, bathroom and a Courtyard and the remaining piece of land is under encroachment of various persons. Till 31.03.2008, late Vishwanath Vishwakarma along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was residing in the house constructed by him and late Vishwanath Vishwakarma was intending to alienate the house consisting of three rooms constructed over the land admeasuring 14x41 sq. ft. When the plaintiff came to know about the same, she approached late Vishwanath Vishwakarma and accordingly late Vishwanath Vishwakarma agreed to alienate three rooms constructed over 14x41 sq.ft. of land for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. The said house of three rooms is the disputed property. The documents pertaining to the house were shown to the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff and her husband had also verified from the Patwari and neighbors who informed that the house in question belongs to Vishwanath Vishwakarma. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to Vishwanath Vishwakarma. On 31.03.2008, a registered sale deed was executed and the vacant possession of the house was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 was also present at the time of execution of sale deed and had also signed the same as an attesting witness. The name of the plaintiff was also mutated in the revenue record as well as the record of the Municipal Council. The plaintiff has also deposited the property tax of the year 2010-11. The plaintiff put her lock on the house and was occasionally visiting the same to look after it. However, the plaintiff and her husband continued to reside in their earlier house.

4. After alienating the house in question, late Vishwanath Vishwakarma and defendant Nos.1 and 2 started residing in the house situated on the western side of the disputed house. In the month of December, 2010, Vishwanath Vishwakarma died. After the death of Vishwanath Vishwakarma, the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were recorded in respect of other land except the plot admeasuring 14x41 sq. ft. In month of May, 2011, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have alienated their remaining house and the land to the defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 was also pressurizing the defendant Nos.1 and 2