AARATI MISHRA Vs. SHANTI LATA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 22/2/2008 (Annexure- A/1) passed by learned Ninth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13A/2008 (Smt. Shantilata Mishra v. Smt. Aarati Mishra and others) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of declaration, partition, separate possession to the extent of half share and also for grant of permanent injunction against appellant No. 1 has been partly allowed by the trial Court holding that (i) plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have equally share on the immovable property mentioned at Schedule-A of the plaint as well as on the house constructed over it. (ii) the movable property i.e. old Maruti Car and motor cycle mentioned at Schedule-B of the plaint, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have equally share (iii) prayer for payment of Rs.1,20,000.00 as well as half of the profit amounting to Rs.10,000.00 by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff in case of selling of movable property or rent earned from utilizing the Schedule-B vehicle as Taxi, has been rejected (iv) the sale-deed dtd. 3/5/2003 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and 3 has been declared void to the extent of share of plaintiff and (v) prayer for granting right to preferential right under Sec. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956") has been rejected.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 13A/2008 filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts, as reflected from plaint averments, are that plaintiff has filed the plaint on 11/7/2000 mainly contending that defendant No. 1- Smt. Aarati Mishra is widow of her son namely Sandeep Mishra. The suit land is situated at Ward No. 11 Ambedkar Nagar, Old Ward No. 8 within the boundaries of Municipal Corporation Bilaspur. It has been contended that son of the plaintiff namely Sandeep Mishra has constructed a house in the year 1992-93, which is valued at Rs.20,00,000.00, in foregoing paragraphs the same will be called as suit house. The suit house was recorded upto 4/7/2002 in the name of plaintiff's son-Sandeep Mishra. It has been further averred in the plaint that as per provisions of the Act, 1956, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act, 1956. As per Sec. 10 of the Act 1956, the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 and 2 are entitled to get equal share of the suit land, other movable and immovable properties as mentioned below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_75_LAWS(CHH)3_2022_1.html</FRM>