SUGHAR SINGH Vs. VIDYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the defendant/appellant has been preferred against a judgment and decree dated 9th September 2009 rendered in Civil Suit No. 18A/2009 by the Fourth Additional District Judge Bhind (M.P.) thereby decreeing the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction over the plot under dispute situated in village Vikrampura, distrct Bhind M.P.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit land i.e. a vacant plot comprised in area 0.28, which is part of Survey No.628/1, situated in village Vikrampura Tahsil and District Bhind, on the basis of sale-deed executed by the previous owner Mungaram, son of Parsuram in favour of Bhanwar Prasad, father of the plaintiffs. After death of Bhanwar Prasad, the plaintiffs acquired the title and ownership over the land. It is stated that when they were making constructions on their vacant plot, the defendants tried to obstruct in their peaceful possession and also interrupted in raising construction on the plot on the ground that the disputed land is a part of Survey No. 629/2 owned by them and their open courtyard is already in existence. On these grounds, the defendant/appellant objected in raising constructions. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties and considering the evidence on record decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering in to possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the appellant/defendant is that the judgment and decree under appeal is passed without properly evaluating the evidence on record and the law, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the alleged sale-deed of the disputed land does not disclose the proper descriptions of the sold land. Even the descriptions regarding the length, width and boundaries of the land are not properly mentioned. It is therefore submitted that the land under dispute covers Survey No. 629/2 belonging to the appellant, which was in his peaceful possession till 26th February 1997 without any interruption but the said fact has been ignored by the learned court-below while passing a decree in restraint manner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal filed may be admitted and the judgment and decree may be set aside.