MUKUND LAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'Code of Civil Procedure'), Appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 25.1.93 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 11 A/92, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.92 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 54-A/92 whereby suit filed by Plaintiff Appellant Mukundlal along with Appellants No. 2 to 4 was dismissed.

(2.) Present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) As per pleadings of the parties, Plaintiff Mukundlal and Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are members of joint Hindu family having holdings at village Ahilda, tahsil Baloda Bazaar, district Raipur and village Magarghata, tahsil and district Durg. Proceeding under Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960') amended vide Act of 20 of 1974 was initiated and tried by competent authority Respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner, Raipur. As per claim of Plaintiffs, competent authority has not considered claim of Plaintiff/Appellant No. 4 Ragini who was unmarried major daughter at the time of such proceeding and Plaintiff/Appellant No. 3 Ravish Kumar who was also entitled for 9 acres of unirrigated land. Competent authority has also net considered the land exempted from the operation of aforesaid Act and is included in the holdings of Plaintiffs/Appellants and thereby committee illegality. By filing written statement, Defendants/Respondents have denied adverse allegation and have alleged that on the basis of written submitted by Plaintiff Mukundlal and documents of age of Plaintiffs/Appellants furnished by Mukundlal they have assessed entitlement of Mukundlal's family, thereby they have not committed any illegality. Plaintiffs/Appellants have preferred an appeal before Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue has remanded the case for reconsideration.