RAMBAI BHAVE Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants are as under:-

(2.) Lakhan Lal Manobiya had four sons namely Suresh Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Raju and Poonam @ Lala. PlaintiffsSantosh Kumar Mahobiya, Raju Mahobiya and Poonam @ Lala Mahobiya are three sons of Lakhan Lal, whereas defendants No.1 and 2 are wife and son of Suresh Kumar as he has already died in the year 1989. The part of the suit land and house was purchased by Suresh Kumar on 6.3.1981 vide Ex.P-1 and in addition to this land/house, Suresh Kumar has also been allotted patta by competent authority on 5.4.83 vide Ex.D-1 and in the said land, house has already been constructed. Suresh Kumar died in the year 1989 and thereafter the aforesaid three plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, possession and mesne profit stating inter-alia that the suit property, which is purchased on 6.3.1981 (Ex.P-1), was purchased by Lakhan Lal out of funds of joint family property, but in the name of Suresh Kumar, husband and father of the defendants. Similarly government land was allotted to Lakhan Lal, but it was named in the name of Suresh Kumar, as such, prior to death of Suresh Kumar, Lakhan Lal has allowed the defendants to stay in one room of the suit house and since then, the defendants are residing in the disputed house, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration of title, permanent injunction, possession and mesne profit.

(3.) Resisting the suit, the defendants filed their written statement controverting the plaint allegations stating inter-alia that the suit land/house was purchased by Suresh Kumar, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 and patta was also granted by the competent authority to Suresh Kumar, as such, the plaintiffs have no right and title over the suit land and the suit deserves to be dismissed.