BINDUMATI BAI Vs. NARBADA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming on second appeal the decision of the trial Court and the first appellate court whereby suit for possession of the land in dispute had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant.

(2.) Laxmi Dayal died in 1952 leaving the lands in dispute and some other properties. He was succeeded by his two windows, Shantibai and Bindumati. In 1954 Chandanbai, widow of brother of Laxmi Dayal, filed Civil Suit No. 346 of 1954 against Shantibai and Bindumati in respect of the property left by Laxmi Dayal. During the pendency of that suit, a deed of partition was executed by Shantibai, Bindumati and Chandanbai, as a result of which each one of them was stated to have become full owner of the property which fell to her share. The partition deed was got registered and necessary mutation entries were made in accordance with that deed. On September 8, 1955, Shantibai made a will of the property which fell to her share as a result of partition, in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The suit filed by chandanbai was disposed of on February 18, 1956 in terms of partition deed dated 13-1-1955. Shantibai died on May 29, 1956. The respondent filed the present suit against Bindumati defendant-appellant for possession of the land in dispute on the allegation that he (the respondent) had taken possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the will executed in his favour by Shantibai. The appellant was stated to have relinquished her right of survivorship in the land which fell to the share of Shantibai. The appellant, it was further pleaded, had taken forcible possession of the land in dispute.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that she had not relinquished her right of survivorship in the land which fell to the share of Shantibai . Shantibai, it was further averred, had no right to dispose of the said land by will. The trial Court accepted the contention of the respondent and decreed his suit. The decision of the trial Court was affirmed on appeal by the first appellate court and by the High Court in second appeal.