MUNNI BAI Vs. MANCHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by defendant No.1 was admitted for hearing on 18/2/2015 by formulating following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The property shown in Schedule "A" of the plaint was settled in Surguja settlement in favour of Late Muneshwar Uraon and Laxman Uraon and thereafter Muneshwar Uraon died on 31/7/89. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are legal representatives of Muneshwar, whereas defendant No.1 is sole daughter of Laxman namely Munni Bai. Shri Laxman sold 12 decimal of land and executed sale deed in favour of her daughter i.e. defendant No.1 on 16/5/89 vide Ex.D-5 and thereafter the suit was filed on 30/8/90 by the plaintiffs herein seeking cancellation of sale deed dtd. 16/5/89 executed by Laxman in favour of her daughter Munni Bai vide Ex.D-5. Apart from cancellation of sale deed, they also claimed that the suit property shown in Schedule "C" of the plaint be declared that it is owned by the plaintiffs as the property held by their father Muneshwar i.e. 0.29 decimal of land. The present dispute relates to sale deed executed by Laxman in favour of her daughter Munni Bai/defendant No.1 as well as the land bearing Khasra Nos.2376, 2378 and 2379 i.e. total 29 decimal of land as it is the case of the plaintiffs that out of total 35 decimal of land, Laxman has only right to 6 decimal of land and remaining is held by Muneshwar and now the plaintiffs. Therefore, except 6 decimal of land, all the lands are held by Muneshwar and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the said land.

(3.) Resisting the suit, defendant No.1 filed her written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating inter-alia that the suit property was held by Muneshwar and Laxman both in Surguja settlement and both have equal share in the property, but they were staying separately and in the year 1955-56 both have partitioned and in Khasra No.2376 Muneshwar has constructed his house and in Khasra No.2377 Laxman has constructed his house and the land being Khasra Nos.2378 and 2379 both have partitioned and as such, there is already partitioned between them. It has also been pleaded that in earlier Civil Suit No.4A/82, decided on 26/7/83 and Civil Appeal No.56A/86, decided on 30/8/1987 (Ex.D4) it has been held that Khasra No.2377 area 6 decimal was held by Laxman and Khasra No.2376 area 8 decimal was held by Muneshwar and finding of partition between them has already been recorded. It has also been pleaded that Laxman has right to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 and the suit is barred by res- judicata with regard to Khasra Nos.2376 and 2377 and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.