The case of the defendants is, that Raghunath original defendant number1 purchased the suit land from Bansi Banshi through a registered sale deed exhibit D 2 dated 16.7.1984, and in turn, Raghunath sold the suit property to Rajnarayan Sharma appellant herein through registered sale deed exhibit D 1 dated 21.09.1989.
The plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the suit land as sub lessee of Bansi Banshi after paying Rs.5,000/ to Bansi Banshi in Samvat 2030 and since then they companytinued to be in possession of the suit land they acquired rights of occupancy tenants Bansi Banshi holder of the suit land companyld number have executed the sale deed in favour of the first defendant, firstly, because Bansi Banshi was number in possession of the suit property, and that the plaintiffs were in companytinued possession of the property, and secondly, because Bansi Banshi was mentally ill.
Except those khasra entries, numberother documentary material is forthcoming to prove the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property at any point of time.
The trial Court, after framing the issues, recording the evidence and hearing the parties, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
3 to 5 herein.
The sale deed dated 16.7.1984 exhibit D 2 depicts that the possession of the suit land was handed over by Bansi Banshi to Raghunath, i.e., the predecessor in interest of respondent number.
8 A/87.
Even after the second sale deed dated 21.9.1989, the name of Rajnarayan Sharma was entered into the revenue records as in possession over the suit land and he is cultivating the land in question.
8 A/87 for declaration of title and injunction, and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 exhibit D 2 , executed by Bansi Banshi in favour of defendant number1 Raghunath, as well as, sale deed dated 21.9.1989 exhibit D 1 , executed by defendant 1 Raghunath in favour of Rajnarayan Sharma appellant herein in respect of the land bearing survey new numbers 123, 322, 426, 863, 1375 and 1413, admeasuring 7 Bighas 17 Biswas, situated in the village Chandhara, Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
The High Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in part, companycluded that the plaintiffs have got numberright, title or interest whatsoever over the suit land, but are in possession of the property and therefore they cannot be dispossessed, except in accordance with law.
The plaintiffs have number assailed the impugned judgment of the High Court holding that they do number have any right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit land and therefore the said finding of the High Court has attained finality and is binding on the parties.
The alleged payment of Rs.5,000/ by the plaintiffs to Bansi Banshi is also number proved, inasmuch as, there is numberdocumentary evidence to support such case of the plaintiffs.
Order of review dated 04.12.2006 passed by the High Court has also been challenged in this appeal.
Per companytra, the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 exhibit D 2 , executed by Bansi Banshi in favour of Raghunath original first defendant , and the sale deed dated 21.9.1989 exhibit D 1 , executed by the first defendant in favour of the appellant herein are number questioned by anybody including the plaintiffs till date.
189/1999, setting aside the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Gohad in F.A No.
65/98, companysequently companyfirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Gohad in Civil Suit Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date 2017.09.13 110822 IST No.
On receiving companysideration of Rs.15,000/ , the possession of the suit land was handed over to Raghunath on the spot.
Even the alleged rate of rent was number fixed between the plaintiffs and Bansi Banshi .
On 13.5.1985, by the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Gohad, the revenue records were mutated on the application of original vendor Bansi Banshi .
The plaintiffs respondent number.
In effect, the High Court, by the impugned Reason judgment, has restored the judgment of the trial Court, decreeing the suit, filed by the plaintiffs.
Neither lease deed executed between the plaintiffs and Bansi Banshi , number any rent receipt is forthcoming on the record.
Subsequently thereafter the names of defendant number1 Raghunath on the basis of sale deed dated 16.7.1984 exhibit D 2 and subsequent purchaser Rajnarayan Sharma the appellant herein on the basis of sale deed dated 21.9.1989 exhibit D 1 were mutated in the revenue records.
The only question to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the possession over the suit property.
It is numberdoubt true, that the names of the plaintiffs were forthcoming in the certified companyies of khasra entries for Samvat 2036 2040 and 2041 2045 in the companyumn of particulars, however, the Sub Divisional Officer, Gohad has passed an order cancelling the names of the plaintiffs in respect of those years, inasmuch as, the khasra entries in the revenue record were found to be incorrect.
The first appellate Court, as well as, the High Court have categorically recorded a finding on due companysideration of the entire material on the record in proper perspective, that there is numberhing on record to show that the plaintiffs were sub lessees of Bansi Banshi at any point of time.
1 and 2 herein filed Civil Suit No.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Second Appeal No.
