- (1.) THE appellants-plaintiffs after getting unsueccess in both the Courts below have preferred this appeal under section 100 of the CPC, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.10.1990 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Civil Regular Appeal No. 8-A/89 confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.1.1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Jatara in Civil Original Suit No. 9-A/84 regarding dismissal of the suit of the appellants.
(2.) AS per factual matrix of the case, the appellants had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect of revenue paid land situated at village Palera bearing survey No. 1085/1 area 0.101 and ssurvey No. 1085/3 area 0.16 hectare. As per averments of the plaint the aforesaid land was belonging to Ganesh son of Pyare. Lula and Tijai, both are sons of Hariekchha and Chhidami, son of Ballu Badai. Out of the aforesaid land Chhidami was the Bhumiswami of half of the land while remaining three persons were the Bhumiswami of remaining half land. In this half of the land said Ganesh had 1 and 1/2 right while Lula and Tijai jointly had 1 and 1/2 right. The land was recorded in the joint name in the revenue record and they were in joint possession of it as such no partition had taken place between them. Said Ganesh had died before 5-6 years from the date of filing the suit. As alleged Ganesh had survived by his two daughters, namely Gouribai and Mula bai. After death of Ganesh his share of the aforesaid land was sold by the said daughters, vide sale deed dated 26.3.1979 to present appellants. The father of Ganesh was known in the name of Manpyare.
(3.) SOME road was developed on part of the aforesaid land. Thus, the same has become valuable. Due to this reason the respondent No. 1 to 4 in conspiracy with deceased defendant No. 5 said Lula has got registered sale deed in their favour from him regarding aforesaid land while the same was illegal, false and bogus as Lula was not having any right or interest in respect of the entire land. Thus, the transaction held between Lula and respondent No. 1 to 4 is not binding against the appellants. It is also pleaded that on demise of Ganesh the name of predecessor of the appellants and the alleged legal representatives of him Mula Bai and Gouri Bai have been mutated in the records of right, vide dated 24.4.1978 at the place of Ganesh. On creating some undue disturbance by respondent No. 1 to 4 in possession of the appellants, the suit was filed by them as said above.;