Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

RFA No. 100536 OF 2022

9. Being aggrieved by the same, appeals were preferred by the plaintiffs in WA No.6466/2011 and WA Nos. 30484-30485/2012 before this Court. The said writ appeals came to be dismissed.

10. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, defendant nos. 1 to 4 approached the ADLR and sought for deletion of the names of plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties. The said application came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff no.6 preferred the appeal before JDLR and the said appeal came to be allowed on 25.2.2013.

11. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, JDLR directed the ADLR to verify the sale deeds of the year 1975-76, conduct spot inspection and rectify the entries in the CTS records pertaining to CTS No.3927/1. He also ordered for the deletion of the plaintiffs' name in the city survey records. Plaintiff no.6 preferred an appeal being aggrieved by that portion of the order before the JDLR.

- 10 -

RFA No. 100536 OF 2022 Said appeal came to be dismissed by JDLR on 29.10.2013.

12. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that taking undue without waiting for conduct of the spot survey and verification of the records by ADLR, tried to get their names affected in the CTS records. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs. Hence for all these reasons, it is prayed by the plaintiffs to decree the suit as prayed for.

13. Pursuant to the suit summons before the trial Court, all the defendants appeared. Defendant nos.2 to 4 filed their common written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.1. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, defendant no.5 got impleaded in the suit voluntarily.

- 25 -

RFA No. 100536 OF 2022 of Kasimsab. His submission is that Kasimsab enjoyed 1680 sq.yds till his life time. But, now the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in the guise of their name appearing in the revenue records, contesting against plaintiffs that they are owners of entire CTS no. 3927/1. His submission is that because of illegal acts of defendant nos. 1 to 4, they were constrained to approach revenue authorities i.e. ADLR and DDLR. Initially there was an order passed by the ADLR in favour of the plaintiffs, thereafter, the proceedings were challenged by the defendants 1 to 4 before this Court which directed the parties to approach Civil Courts. Even there were writ petitions and writ appeals before this Court. They admit about the revenue proceedings as well as writ proceedings before this Court by both the parties. After a direction by this Court to get the rights decided by the Civil Court, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the civil suit. It is their submission that, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in arriving at conclusion that, it is the plaintiffs