GANGABAI Vs. JAGESHWAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the Appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 6.10.1994 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/94, affirming the judgment and decree of decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction dated 19.1.1994 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 1 -A/90. The present second appeal is admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of faw: Have the two Courts below erred in not considering that Ku. Neeta was a necessary party?

(2.) WHETHER the two Courts below erred in holding that the property in question was a joint Hindu family property? What was the effect of non-compliance of Court's order dated 18/4/1991? Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that as per pleadings of the parties, Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that name of Kalesar as father of Ku. Neeta in school register be struck off and name of Defendant No. 5 Ramkumar be mentioned and permanent injunction against, Respondent No. 4 for alienation of joint Hindu family property on the ground that properties situated at village Semra and Sarkanda were ancestral properties of Respondent No. 1 along with the Appellants herein. Ku. Neeta is not daughter of Kalesar. By filing separate written statements, Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Respondents No. 4 and 5 therein had denied the allegation made in the plaint and Respondents No. 4 and 5 therein have alleged that property is not joint Hindu family property. Kalesar has adopted Ku. Neeta as a daughter, therefore, in the school record name of Kalesar has been shown as father. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur has decreed the suit. Same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and decree impugned, judgment and decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside. Suit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. Advocate fee as per schedule. A decree be drawn accordingly.