- (1.)APPELLANT - defendant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by district Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 19A of 1997 whereby, reversing judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 11A of 1986 by which, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of respondents-plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the plot bearing Survey No. 2227/2 area 1836 Sq. Ft.
(2.)FACTS of the case in brief are that the land comprised in Survey No. 2227/2 Old No. 553/2 measuring 3 Bigha 15 Biswa is situated at Old Gadi Ad Lahogipura, Vidisha City. The disputed land is measuring 1836 Sq.Ft. As per plaintiffs-respondents, they are owner of the disputed land. They are in possession of this land. They have purchased this land from Shafrullah and Qudratullah. They paid Rs. 9,200/- to Qudratulla. They got mutated disputed land in their name. They got diverted the land. They were fined by competent authority to built plinth of the house on disputed land without permission. Appellant-defendant alleging disputed land of its ownership, started proceeding to dispossess respondents from the disputed land. Defendant-appellant is challenging rights and title of the plaintiffs-respondents. Consequently, he filed civil suit against appellant - defendant. It reply, it has been pleaded by appellant- defendant that disputed land belongs to municipality Vidisha. Defendant is the owner of the disputed land. Surrounding plots of the disputed land belong to defendant. He allotted lease in the year 1969 to so many persons of the surrounding plots of the disputed land. Defendants put wire fencing for safety of the disputed land. As per resolution passed on 4.5.1979 by appellant- defendant Shafrullah and Qudratullah were not the owner of the disputed land. Mutation in the name of plaintiffs-respondents is illegal. Plaintiffs have taken away wire fencing without permission of the appellant. In the garb of the temporary injunction, appellant has built house on the disputed plot. They prayed to dismiss the suit.
Learned trial Court framed nine issues. Plaintiffs examined three witnesses and defendant-appellant examined two witnesses. After hearing both the parties and perusing evidence and material on record, learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs-respondents are not owner of the disputed plot. Plot is not in possession of the plaintiffs-respondents. Shafrullah and Qudratullah were not the owner of the disputed plot and consequently, dismissed the suit.

(3.)AGGRIEVED by the impugned judgment and decree, plamtiffs - respondents filed appeal before Distt. Judge, Vidisha. After hearing both the parties, first appellate Court set-side judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents by impugned judgment and decree.