Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Uma Kant Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Chandra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 12 and 14.
(2.) By means of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the judgement dated 19.8.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadohi, Gyanpur in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 being Original Suit No.26 of 1982. The case of the plaintiff/respondents was that they had been in possession of the suit property upto 1.11.1981 when at about 1.30 p.m. the defendants 1 and 2 (Alwar & Babu Lal) broke opened the lock of their house situated over the disputed land and entered into possession thereof. It was alleged that the suit property was purchased by Ramraj, defendant no.6 by sale deed dated 20.2.1959 from Tara Chand and sale deed dated 9.6.1960 from Alwar and Babu Lal, defendants 1 and 2 (now represented by the petitioners). It was further claimed that subsequently there had been a partition in which the suit property had fallen to the share of plaintiff no.1 Atma Prasad, whereas Ramraj, defendant no. 6 was allotted other properties. The plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit properties, when suddenly on 1.11.1981, they were dispossessed. The claim of the plaintiff/respondents was contested by the defendants by filing written statement in which they pleaded that infact they intended to execute a mortgage deed, but by playing fraud, Ram Raj, succeeded in procuring the sale deeds. They denied the alleged partition and also claimed that the plaintiff/ respondents had never been in possession of the suit property.
(3.) The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The trial court, while decreeing the suit entered a specific finding on issue no.1 that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property until 1.11.1981 when the defendants dispossessed them by breaking open the lock and removing movables lying therein. For arriving at the said finding, the trial court has relied on oral testimony of PW-1 and PW2 as well as the statement of DW-3, one of the witnesses of the defendants, wherein he admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property upto 1.11.1981, but after that it has been in possession of defendants 1 and 2. The trial court, while arriving at such finding has also incidentally referred to the sale deeds set up by the plaintiffs and has observed that those sale deeds are still valid and have not been challenged nor held to be void or cancelled by any court of law. The trial court also specifically held that the petitioners were dispossessed within six months of filing of suit and accordingly decreed the suit.;