Smt. Amrensiya Toppo And Anr vs Neman And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6030 Chatt

                                                                             1


                                                                          AFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                                   Reserved on 28.06.2022
                                                Pronounced on 27.09.2022
                             FA No. 87 of 2015
  1. Smt. Amrensiya Toppo W/o Kishore Toppo Aged About 35 Years R/o
     Village Nakbar, P.H. No. 32, R.I. Circle Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha,
     District Jashpur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
  2. Bhousa @ Juluyus S/o Mangru Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
     Nakbar, P.H. No. 32, R.I. Circle Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha, District
     Jashpur Chhattisgarh , District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---- Appellants
                                   Versus
  1. Neman S/o Xeso Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nakbar, P.H. No.
     32, R.I. Circle Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur
     Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
  2. Sukra S/o Juliyus Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Nakbar, P.H. No.
     32, R.I. Circle Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur
     Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Nilmoni Tea Estare, P.O. Tingkong
     786612, District Dibrugarh, Assam , Assam
  3. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Collector, Jashpur, District
     Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                           ---- Respondents

For Appellants           :     Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1     :     Shri Manoj K. Sinha, Advocate
For State                :     Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, Panel Lawyer


                   Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
                             C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1) Defendant No.3 has filed present appeal under Section 96 of the CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Jashpur in Civil Suit No. 2- A/2013 by which the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is the title holder and in possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 779/2 area 1.197 Ha, Khasra No. 799/2 area 0.247 Ha. and Khasra No. 799/3 area 0.809 Ha situated at village Nakbar, P.H. No. 32, RI Circle Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha, District - Jashpur and sale-deed dated 23.07.2003 is null and void.

2) For the sake of convenience parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the suit filed before the trial Court.

3) The brief facts as reflected from the plaint averments are that the plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration of title and for declaring the sale deed dated 23.07.2003, order dated 08.08.2002 passed in the Revenue Case as null and void contending that the land bearing Khasra No. 779/2 area 1.197 Ha. Khasra No. 7999/2 area 0.247 Ha. And Khasra No. 799/3 area 0.809 Ha. situated at village Nakbar P.H. No. 32, Revenue Circle Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha, District - Jashpur hereinafter referred to as suit property was recorded in the joint name of Birsai S/o Pahaharu, Baisam, Bhosa, Sheela D/o Mangru till 1978-79 which has been sold to Juliyus S/o Bolo Uraon of Village- Nakbar through the registered sale deed dated 04.05.1978 for sale consideration of Rs. 2500/- wherein in the sale deed, Birsai S/o Pahaharu, Baisam, Bhosa & Sheela have put their thumb impression. Narendra Kumar and Josheph have signed as witness and the possession of the suit property was given to Juliyus S/o Bolo Uraon.

4) On the basis of sale deed dated 04.05.1978, name of Juliyus S/o Bolo has been recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, he is doing agriculture work. Juliyus expired on 15.08.1979 thereafter his sole son Sukra being legal heir of deceased his name in the suit property was recorded. Therefore, Sukra became title holder of the suit property and was utilising the suit property for agriculture work. Thereafter, on 08.06.2001 he sold the suit property to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and handed over possession to the plaintiff. On the basis of registered sale deed dated 08.06.2001, vide order dated 11.08.2001 passed by the Tahsildar, Kansabel name of the plaintiff was recorded in the revenue record on 08.02.2002 and thereafter he is in possession of the suit property and doing agriculture work. Aggrieved with the order dated 11.08.2001, Defendant No. 1 Bhousa preferredan appeal before the SDO (Revenue), Bagicha. The SDO(Revenue) vide order dated 08.08.2002 set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 11.08.2001 and directed for recording of name of Bhousa again in the revenue record. As such, defendant No. 1 claiming himself owner of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 779/2 area 1.197 Ha. has sold the land through registered sale deed dated 23.07.2003 to defendant No. 3 Amrensiya Toppo W/o Kishore Toppo. It has been further contended that the plaintiff being

aggrieved with the order dated 08.08.2002 preferred revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.07.2003. This has compelled him to file the suit and has prayed for setting aside order dated 08.08.2002 passed by the SDO (Revenue).

5) The defendants No. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement denying the allegation in the plaint contending that description of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 have wrongly been mentioned. Correct description of the plaintiff is Naiman S/o Khesho village Chhafjibati P.S. Diwapur, Tahsil

- Neuland District - Dinapur Nagaland and correct description of defendant No. 2 is Sukra S/o Lazhrush, Chaibagan Thana - Rajmoitahra, Dibrugarh, District - Dibrugarh (Assam). It is contended that sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant No. 3 after getting sale consideration, therefore, the sale deed dated 23.07.2003 is legal and justified. It is contended that Juliyus @Bhousa and Birsai jointly had 67.40 Acres of land situated at village Nakbar. Bhousa S/o Mangru was converted to Christian in 1970-72 and changed his name to Juliyus. He was illiterate, when other persons suggested him that if he changes his name, his land will be ousted from ceiling by the government as per Ceiling Act, therefore, he executed sale deed in the name of Juliyus on 04.05.1978, since then defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property. In the sale deed inadvertently, defendant No. 1 got his name typed as Juliyus S/o Bholo whereas he is son of Mangru. They further contended that Juliyus S/o Bholo was never the owner of the suit property. Actually, Juliyus S/o Bholo was issueless, as such, he never raised claim over the suit property which is in the name of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 Sukra together lived at Nagaland and Assam, therefore, they were acquainted with each other. Brother of the plaintiff resides in village Nakbar who was aware that Bhousa has registered the suit property in his Christian name Juliyus. It is doubtful that how after death of Juliyus S/o Bholo the property has been recorded in the name of Sukra. Since Juliyus S/o Bholo was issueless therefore, recording of name of Sukra in the revenue record is by fraud. The plaintiff brought defendant No. 2 from Assam to village Nakbar. The plaintiff came to know that the suit property is recorded in the name of Sukra S/o Juliyus and the defendant No. 2 was also Sukra, therefore, he told him to execute sale deed

personating himself to be Sukra S/o Juliyus. It is further contended that real name of defendant No. 2 was Samet S/o Lazhrus @ Madhav. Defendant No. 1 submitted an application under Sections 109, 110 of the Land Revenue Code before Tahsildar, Kansabel. The Tahsildar granted interim protection restraining the registration on 08.05.2001. Still, Dy. Registrar has executed the sale deed on 08.06.2001, therefore, the sale deed is null and void and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6) Defendant No. 2 has filed his written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff and has admitted the case of the plaintiff and stated that on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and family of the plaintiff is also in continue possession of the suit property and has prayed for grant of relief to the plaintiff.

7) On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 12 issues.

8) The plaintiff to substantiate his averments exhibited documents Ex.P.1 - Kistbandi Khatoini year 1997-98, Ex.P.2- Kistbandi Khatoini year 1998- 99, Ex.P3- Kistbandi Khatoini year 1999-2000, Ex.P4- Kistbandi Khatoini year 2000-2001, Ex.P5- Kistbandi Khatoini year 2001-2002, Ex.P6 - Kistbandi Khatoini (Form B-1) year 2001-2002, Ex. P7 sale deed dated 23.07.2003, Ex.P8- registered sale deed dated 04.05.1978, Ex.P-9 registered sale deed dated 08.06.2001, Ex.10 death certificate of Juliyus S/o Bholo. Ex.P11- Revenue record of Juliyus, Ex.P12 Revenue record of Sukra S/o Juliyus. Ex.P13 Khasra Panchasala year 1999-2000 and 2002-2003 of Sukra S/o Juliyus, Ex.P14 map, Ex.P15 Khasra Panchasala year 1979-80 and 1983 -84, Ex.P16 order of the Tahsildar Kansabel dated 11.08.2001, Ex.P-17 Order of the SDO, Bagicha dated 08.08.2002, Ex.P-18 copy of Mutation register, Ex.P-19 Kistbandi Khatoini 1980-81 record of Juliyus, Ex.P-20 Kistbandi Khatoini 1980-81 record of Birsai, Baisam, Bhosa and Sheela, Ex.P-21 Khasra Panchsala khasra No. 779/2 and 799/2, Ex.P-22 B-1 year 1986-87, Ex.P-23 B-1 year 1992-93, Ex.P-24 Khasra Panchasala year 1993-94 and Ex.P-25 order sheets from 31.08.1987 to 16.12.1987 of the revenue case and mutation order dated 19.03.1987 and the plaintiff to substantiate his averments made in the plaint has examined Narendra Kumar Pal as PW/1, Naiman as PW/2, Pyara as PW/3, Isdor Lakra as PW/4, Kamal

Ekka as PW/5.

9) Defendants to substantiate their case have examined Amrensiya as DW/1, Shivprasad Kotwar as DW/2, Raiman Minz as DW/3, Juliyus @ Bhousa S/o Mangru as DW/4 and exhibited Ex. D-1 & D-2 certificate given by President Sologuri Tipolia G.P., Ex. D-3 certificate given of Manager of Nilmoni Tea Estate, Ex. D-4 affidavit of Samel Urang, Ex.D- 5 map, Ex.D-6 Khasra Panchasala year 2009-10, Ex.D-7 Kistabandi Khatoini 2009-10, Ex.D-8 Death certificate of Juliyus, Ex.D-9 registered sale deed dated 08.06.2001, Ex.D-10 order passed by the SDO dated 08.08.2002, Ex.D-11 order dated 11.07.2003 by Revenue Department, Ex.D-12 order from 08.05.2001 to 05.03.2002 of the Tahsildar, Kansabel. Ex.D-13 copy of the application submitted before Tahsildar, Kansabel, Ex.D-14 copy of the interim order dated 08.05.2001, Ex.D-15 reply filed by defendant No. 2, Ex.D-16 certified copy of the objection raised by defendant No. 2 before Tahsildar, Ex.D-17 mutation register, Ex.D-18 sale deed dated 23.07.2003, Ex.D-19 order passed by the Tahsildar, Kansabel & Ex.D-20 birth certificate.

10) The plaintiff's witness PW-1 Narendra Kumar Pal who was witness to the registered sale deed 04.05.1978 has stated that registered sale deed was executed in the office of the Registrar, Birsai S/o Pahaharu, Baisam, Bhosa, Sheela D/o Mangru called him as witness and also admitted his signature. He has stated that after the sale deed name of Juliyus S/o Bholo has been recorded in the Revenue Record. After purchasing the disputed land, Juliyus died after one year in 1979. Sukra is the son of Juliyus and he is residing in Assam. After death of Juliyus, name of Sukra has also been recorded in the revenue record. The witness was cross examined wherein he has stated that Bhousa has adopted Christian religion and changed his name as Juliyus. He has admitted that to avoid ceiling he has executed the registered sale deed. The original copy is in possession of Bhousa. The sale deed in which he put his signature in the Court is not original sale deed, and it is true copy of the sale deed. He has admitted that Sukra is resident of Nagaland, his father and grandfather also settled there. He has no land in village Nakbar. The witness further admitted that two kilometers away from village Nakbar in village Kokendri, Juliyus S/o Bholo was residing, who was issueless and he expired on 15.08.1979. He has admitted that

Sukra has personated himself as son of Juliyus and got recorded his name in the revenue record. The matter was tried by the Tahsildar where Sukra was not found to be son of Juliyus. Defendant No. 2 separately cross-examined the witness wherein he has stated that this is true that Birsai S/o Pahaharu, Baisam, Bhosa, Sheela D/o Mangru had called him as witness to the sale deed and he has put his signature in the sale deed as witness. He later came to know that they have not sold land to any other person but they are selling land among each others.

11)Plaintiff himself examined as PW-2 and in his examination in chief, he has taken the stand which he has pleaded in the plaint. He was extensively examined by defendant No. 1 & 3 wherein he has stated that he is residing at Nagaland and Sukra is residing at Assam. He admitted that he knows Bhousa. He has further submitted that in the mutation record it has been mentioned that Juliyus S/o Bolo has no issue. He has voluntarily said that Sukra is son of Juliyus. He has admitted that in the mutation register there is description of three khasra numbers area 5.57 acres.

12) The plaintiff's witness No. 3 Pyara Singh S/o Xeso in his examination in chief has reiterated the stand taken by the plaintiff in his plaint. In affidavit at paragraph 12 he has stated that the defendant No. 1 with co- owners Birsai, Baisam, and Sheela together have sold the land on 04.05.1978 to Juliyus S/o Bholo. The revenue appeal for taking the same land back has been filed by committing fraud and dishonesty. As such the subsequent sale deed dated 23.07.2003 is void ab initio. The witness was cross-examined by the defendants No. 1 & 3 wherein he has admitted that he knows Juluyus who is son of Bholo. This is not correct that Juliyus was issueless. Bhousa sold land belonging to himself, Birsai, Besham and Sheela jointly in year 1978. He has admitted that in year 2001 Bhousa sold his own land to Amrensiya. The witness in the cross-examination in para 24 has stated that he knew Juliyus whose father's name is Bholo. He denied that Juliyus has no son. He voluntarily said that Juliyus son is Sukra and he is aware that the land is recorded in the name of Juliyus whose father is Bolo. In para 25 he has denied that after death of Juliyus, he told to his brother Naiman who is working at Dinapur, Nagaland that Juliyus has died, therefore, call Sukra from Dibrugarh and his name be recorded as son

of Juliyus.

13) The defendant No.1 to substantiate his case has examined Amresia who in examination in chief has taken the stand which she has taken in written statement. The witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff and in the cross-examination she has stated that she has purchased the property in 23.07.2003 but she has not filed any suit to declare the sale deed dated 04.05.1978 null and void. She has also stated that the present case relates to sale deed dated 23.07.2003 and she has also stated that she is not aware whether Bhosa has filed any suit to declare the sale deed dated 04.05.1978 as null and void.

14) The defendants No. 1 and 3 have examined defendant's witness No. 2- Shiva who has reiterated facts related to sale deed dated 23.07.2003 and has stated that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. The witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff wherein at paragraph 12 has stated that he does not know about Julius S/o Bholo and also admitted that he is not aware about the facts of 1990. He has admitted that his father was kotwar of the village in 1978 and he knew one Narendra Kumar of the village but he expired. He has admitted that Mangru was the father of Baisam, Bhosa and Sheela. Bahru was father of Mangru and Birsai. After death of Bahru, the land was recorded in the name of Birsai, Baisam and Sheela. This is true that still the land is recorded in the name of Bhosa, Bisam and Sheela.

15) The defendants' witness No. 3 Raiman Minj was examined before the Court who in examination in chief has reiterated the stand which has been taken by the defendants No. 1 and 3 in the written statement. The witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff wherein he has stated that he is not aware in the paragraph 2 of the affidavit where there is mention about the sale deed dated 04.05.1978 and he has admitted that on 04.05.1978 Birsai, Bisam and Sheela have sold the property to Julius S/o Bholo. He has also admitted that later on name of Julius S/o Bholo has also been recorded in the revenue record. He is not aware that when Julius expired then name of Sukra has been recorded or not. He has also admitted that he has not filed suit before the Court to declare the sale deed dated 04.05.1978 to be null and void. He has also admitted that he has not filed any suit against Julius S/o Bholo. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not filed any suit

against Sukra. He has stated that he does not know Sukra.

16) Defendants' witness No. 4 Gorakhnath in affidavit has submitted that actual name of Sukara is Samel Urang and I know him personally and he is working in tea garden. Sukra was working under the Manger Monin Gogai. He is uneducated person. He has three sons and two daughters. He admitted that Sukra @ Samel Urang has told him that he has sold land in village Nakbar personating himself as Sukra fraudulently for money, but he has not received the money. He has also stated that he wanted to place on record the factual position of the case before the Court but due to death of his wife he could not do it. The witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff and in the cross examination, he has admitted that he neither knew Birsai of village Nakbar his brother nor his nephew and niece.

17) The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has allowed the suit and recorded a finding that the witness Pyara, Ishdar Lakra and Kamal Lakra have stated that the suit property was sold by Bhosa to Julius S/o Bholo on 04.05.1978 and that was never challenged by the defendants. It has also not been proved by the defendants that sale deed dated 08.06.2001 was not in accordance with law. The trial Court has further recorded that Birsai, Besam and Sheela have sold the property to Juliyus S/o Bholo in 1978 as such no right to sell the property has been accrued to defendant No. 2 again, therefore, the sale deed executed by the Bhosa on 23.07.2003 in favour of defendant No. 3 Amresia is null and void.

18) Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 the defendants No. 1 and 3 have filed the present appeal mainly contending that from the record it is clear that plaintiff is not in possession of the land despite learned trial Court has granted decree of possession which has not been sought for, as such, the suit is not maintainable and no decree can be granted, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 3 to substantiate his contention would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Venkatraraja and Others vs. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal(D) Through Lrs. And Others 1 and would refer to paragraph 16 to 18 and also refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme

2013 AIR SCW 3063

Court in case of Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal and Others 2. With regard to identification of Julius S/o Bholo, it has been contended that defendants No. 1 and 3 in their written statement filed by them, they have taken specific stand that defendant No. 2 alleged Sukra is resident of Assam who has recorded his name by playing fraud and got mutated his name. The permanent address mentioned in the appeal memo is Nilmoni Tea Estate, P.O. Tingkong District - Dibrugarh (Assam) and the notice has been served upon him on the permanent address.

19) From the records, it is vivid that defendants No. 1 and 3 examined Gorakhnath and also exhibited D/1 to D/4 i.e. affidavits of the Samel Urang certificate issued by the village Panchayat Tipomiya. Learned trial Court has not considered these documents, therefore the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the record and the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and perverse and deserves to be set aside and would submit that judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court may kindly be set aside.

20) On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is just, proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

21) From the evidence, material on record, it is quite vivid that the defendants to substantiate that Sukra is resident of Assam and his original name is Samel Urang S/o Lazrus and by playing fraud got mutated his name as Sukra has exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to D/3 the certificate given by the Panchayat but has not examined any person from the Panchayat to substantiate that these documents have been issued by the Panchayat in its routine course of functioning. As such, though documents are public document, but have not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly not believed on these documents, as it is incumbent upon the defendants to examine any authorized person of the Panchayat who has issued the documents but no such exercise has been done by the defendants No. 1 and 3. Mere exhibiting the documents do not amount to proving of the contents of the documents. As such, it cannot be relied upon documents Ex. D/1 to D/3 to prove the defence taken by the

AIR 2009 SC 1103

defendants. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rupajan Begum v. Union of India and Others 3 has held as under :-

"16. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary, by no means, is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an opportunity to the holder of the certificate. If the document and its contents is to be subjected to a thorough search and probe we do not see why the said certificate should have been interdicted by the High Court, particularly, in the context of the facts surrounding the enumeration and inclusion of the documents mentioned in the illustrative list of documents, as noticed above. In fact, the said list of illustrative documents was also laid before this Court in the course of the proceedings held from time to time and this Court was aware of the nature and effect of each of the documents mentioned in the list."

22) From the facts of the case and law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rupanjan Begum (Supra), it is crystal clear that certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary has to be verified at two stages i.e firstly the authenticity of the certificate itself and authenticity of the contents thereof. The very requirement that the certificate has to be verified at two stage is itself in implication that the author of the certificate i.e. the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat has to be examined in order to verify the certificate which had been relied upon. It is also clear from the above stated judgment that non-examination of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat to verify the certificate Ex. D/1 to D/3, renders the said certificate to be inapplicable in the present facts on making it the basis to arrive at a conclusion that defendant No. 2 is Samel Urang and not Sukru S/o Juliyus. Accordingly, the defendants No. 1 and 3 have failed to discharge the burden to prove defence taken in the written statement. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any illegality in disbelieving Ex. D/1 to D/3.

23) The second limb of submission of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he is in

(2018) 1 SCC 579

possession of the suit property. The witnesses examined by the plaintiff in categorical terms have stated that suit property is in possession of the plaintiff and there was no rebuttal to the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. Even otherwise, defendants have not proved that how they are in possession of the suit property. It is quite often that if defendants No. 1 & 3 are doing agricultural work for the period in question then they could have filed certain document to demonstrate that they are in possession of the suit property. Nothing has been brought on record, merely the bald statement of defendant No. 1 that she is in possession of the suit property, cannot be accepted that she is in possession of the suit property. Even otherwise in the registered sale deed dated 14.05.2001 (Ex. P/9), it has been specifically mentioned that the seller has given possession to the purchaser.

24) The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of the title on the basis of sale deed dated 08.06.2001 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the purchaser is given possession of the suit property. Therefore, it is not required for the plaintiff to claim the possession over property as it is in his possession. It is well settled position of law that the registered document is considered to be true and correct unless it is rebutted by adducing cogent evidence by opposite party. The defendants have not produced any material to rebut the said facts mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, it is not required for the plaintiff to claim possession over the suit property, as such the suit was very well maintainable, as such, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 3 in present facts of the case, is not applicable and distinguishable on the facts of the case.

25) Learned trial Court while setting aside the sale deed dated 23.07.2003 has taken in to consideration the fact that the sale deed dated 04.05.1978 has become final as the sale deed was never assailed by defendants No. 1 and 3, therefore, the subsequent sale deed is bad in law and this fact has been specifically admitted by them in the evidence. The sale deed dated 04.05.1978 is foundation of the dispute between the parties as in view of the sale deed dated 04.05.1978, the suit property has been recorded in the name of Juliyus S/o Bholo and Sukru has sold the property being legal representative of Juliyus S/o

Bholo, therefore, it is finding of fact which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records, warranting any interference by this Court.

26) Considering the entire material on record, the evidence and law, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is justified, legal and does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference. Accordingly, the First Appeal is dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.

27) A decree be drawn up accordingly.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Deshmukh