CFA-147/09 - Babulal Vs. Kamla Devi & Anr. Judgment dt.30.3.09 1/3 S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.147/2009 Babulal Vs. Kamla Devi & Anr. Date of order : 30th March, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Rajesh Shah for the appellant. Mr. Surendra Surana for the respondents. ----- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 6.12.2008 whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit No.74/2005 filed by the plaintiff – Kamla Devi wife of Shri Vishnu Kumar in respect of a plot of land of 513 sq. ft. situated at Motal, Tehsil Sirohi, District Sirohi. According to the plaintiff, the said plot of land was purchased by her from the respondent No.2 Bhubaram S/o Lalaji for a sum of Rs.11,750/- by a registered sale deed on 24.11.1988 and the plaintiff also obtained possession of the said plot situated in patta No.513. When the defendant, the present appellant Babulal took forcible possession of the said plot of land in December 2002 and started raising construction, the plaintiff filed the said suit for possession which has been decreed by the learned trial court by the impugned judgment. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant Mr. Rajesh Shah submitted that the said plot of land was taken on rent by the defendant appellant Babulal from respondent No.2 Bhubaram in CFA-147/09 - Babulal Vs. Kamla Devi & Anr. Judgment dt.30.3.09 2/3 the year 2000 who was paying the regular rent of Rs.250/- per month to him. He read the statement of DW 1 Babulal recorded by the learned trial court on 17.5.2005, in which he has clearly stated before the learned trial court that the said plot of land was taken on rent on 1.9.2000. In his cross-examination, he said that when he came to know that said plot of land was already sold by the said Bhubaram to the plaintiff Kamla Devi he did not take any action against the respondent No.2 Bhubaram. Said Babulal has also stated in his cross- examination that Bhubaram gave him receipt of Rs.700/- in June 2004. Learned counsel also read out exhibit A-14 before the Court, the rent note which is said to have executed by one Prabhuram son of the respondent No.2 Bhubaram. 4. The learned trial court has clearly found that the said rent note executed by Prabhuram was absolutely blank and was not even signed. The said Prabhuram has not come in the witness box and prove the said document. When apparently the said plot of land was sold by the registered sale deed by the respondent No.2 Bhubaram in favour of plaintiff Kamla Devi on 24.11.1988, the said respondent No.2 Bhubaram could not give him the said plot of land on rent to the defendant much less his son Prabhu Ram. Be that as it may, no such document was proved before the learned trial court and, therefore, the defence put up by the defendant appellant that he was in possession of the plot in question under the rent note falls to the ground. 5. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the CFA-147/09 - Babulal Vs. Kamla Devi & Anr. Judgment dt.30.3.09 3/3 impugned judgment and decree, this Court is satisfied that learned trial court has gone thorough the entire evidence in detail and has found that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the said plot of land in question on the basis of aforesaid registered sale deed and the defendant appellant was a trespasser over the said plot of land. Consequently this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment and decree. 6. The first appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. itemNo.s/1 babulal