This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against
the judgement and decree dated 6/5/2016 passed by First Additional District
Judge, Mungavali, District Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No. 67A of 2012, as
well as, judgement and decree dated 5/1/2011 passed by Civil Judge Class 1,
Mungavali in Civil Suit No. 3A of 2007.
2. Appellants are defendants who have lost their case from both the
Courts below.
3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction
pleading inter alia that he is the owner and in possession of area 1.045
hectares out of 1.494 hectares of Survey No. 112 situated in village Atreji,
Tahsil Mungavali, District Ashoknagar. On the southern side of the land,
land of defendant No. 1 is situated whereas on the eastern side, land of Ram
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17801
2 SA-317-2016
Prasad is situated and on the western side remaining land of survey No. 112
is there and on the northern side, land of defendants is situated. It was
claimed that plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of the property in
dispute, as it was purchased by plaintiff from the father of defendants
namely Feran Singh by registered sale deed dated 30/5/1998 for a
consideration amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and since then plaintiff is in
possession of the property in dispute and even today he is in possession
thereof. On 1/9/2007, at about 10:00 a.m., plaintiff was ploughing his field
with the help of a Tractor. At that time defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and 2-3
other persons came at the disputed property and tried to stop the plaintiff
from cultivating the land. When plaintiff replied that he has purchased the
property from their father and why they are picking quarrel then it was
challenged by defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 by claiming that the land belongs
to them and therefore they would cultivate the land and tried to forcibly
dispossess the plaintiff and also started denying the right and title of plaintiff.
However the plaintiff did not allow defendant Nos. 1,2,4 and 6 to take
possession and with great difficulty he persuaded them to go back. However
while going back defendants extended a threat that they would take
possession and accordingly suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction was filed.