Signature Not Verified The brief facts of the case are Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date 2020.02.05 171529 IST Reason 2.1 A Suit No.
A Suit No.90 A of 2006 was filed on 16.09.1998 by respondent Nos.
Plaintiffs objection to the admissibility of the decree was that decree being number registered cannot be accepted in evidence.
The plaintiff was in possession of suit land, which was recorded in the names of defendant.
and 1650 sq.
being the part of survey No.203, which was in actual, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the appellant and their ancestral since 1951.
A Writ Petition No.2170 of 2015 was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 07.01.2015.
2.2 The appellants, who were son of Habib Kha claimed to be in possession, companytinued to be in possession of the aforesaid area.
The Suit was filed for 7 biswa area of survey No.203 situated at Village Kitvani, Kasba Mandsaur, which was attached in east with the land of plaintiff being survey No.223.
250 A of 1984 was filed by one Habib Kha, the father of the appellant for declaration and injunction.
1 and 2 against the appellants for perpetual injunction in respect of two areas admeasuring 825 sq.
Civil Judge took the view that decree dated 04.10.1985 is required to be registered as per provision of Section 17 1 e of the Registration Act, hence it is number admissible in evidence.
4 to 7 and they were impleaded as plaintiffs in the above said suit.
2.3 During evidence of Mohammade Hafiz, one of the appellants, he tried to exhibit the decree dated 04.10.1985 passed in Civil Suit No.250A of 1984, which was objected by the plaintiff.
260A of 1998 pleading that respondents have forcefully took the possession of area admeasuring 1650 sq.
A companypromise decree was passed in the suit dated 04.10.1985 declaring the right of plaintiff on 7 biswa area and it was declared that remaining land belong to defendant.
bearing survey No.203.
A written statement was filed by the appellants in Civil Suit No.
Learned Civil Judge heard the parties and passed order dated 07.01.2015 on issue regarding admissibility of the above document.
The respondent Nos.
Along with the written statement, a companynter claim was filed by the appellant for recovery of possession of the area.
1 and 2 sold the above said two areas to respondent Nos.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench dated 13.02.2017 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the trial companyrt dated 07.01.2015 whereby the trial companyrt has held that the companypromise decree sought to be filed by the appellant is number admissible in evidence for want of registration.
