DEVDUTT Vs. SHASHI VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been preferred by Defendant No.2 Devdutt under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-I, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.54A/16, whereby the trial Court, while answering Issue No.6, has held that the suit for partition as claimed by the Plaintiff, cannot be held to be not maintainable on account of the dismissal of her earlier claim in Civil Suit No.20-A/2010, which was withdrawn on 20.06.2012 without obtaining the leave for filing a fresh one. The parties to this Petition shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff Smt. Shashi Verma instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, partition, injunction and also for mesne profits with regard to the properties described in plaint Schedule "A" and "B". According to her, it was held by her grandfather Chaitram Verma, who had two sons and a daughter, namely, Padum singh (her father), Devdutt and Sushila Bai respectively. It is pleaded further that after the sad demise of her grandfather (Chaitram), the ancestral property owned by him was divided, amongst his sons and daughter, except 5.750 hectares of land of village Amora, while the properties situated at village Kobia are recorded in joint names of her father Padum Singh and uncle Devdutt, which are described in detail in Plaint Schedule "A". It is pleaded further that after the death of father Padum Singh, it was partitioned by his sons (Defendants No.4 to 7) without providing the share to her and sisters and likewise, nothing was provided with regard to the properties situated at village Amora and Navagaon as described in Plaint Schedule "B".

(3.) It is pleaded further that earlier claim of her, being Civil Suit No.20- A/2010 seeking partition along with other reliefs, was withdrawn on 20.06.2012 because of the assurance given by Defendants No.1 to 7, who are mother, uncle, aunt and brothers, but after the withdrawal of the said suit, they started misbehaving and refused to provide her share after obtaining her signature in blank papers. She has, therefore, been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature on or about 06.05.2016.