(1.) Defendant No.1 has filed present appeal under Sec. 96 of the CPC challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/4/2006 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2006 by which the learned trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff granting permanent injunction to plaintiff holding that defendant No. 2 is not in possession of the suit property mentioned in Schedule A and B, therefore, the sale deed executed on 30/9/2003 in favour of defendant No. 1 is not binding upon the plaintiff. Learned trial Court further restrained defendant No. 1 from possession of the suit permanently.
(2.) For the sake of convenience parties would be referred to as per their status in the suit filed before the trial Court.
(3.) The brief facts as reflected from the plaint averments are that the plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration that the sale deed dtd. 30/9/2003 is not binding upon them. It has been contended that the plaintiff and defendants are Gond tribals and as per their custom defendants cannot inherit succession and in Gond community widow and daughter are only entitled to get maintenance as they have no right over the property as they are not governed by Hindu Law. It has been further contended that total 112 khasra numbers total area 33.804 Ha. are situated in Khadgaon, P.H. No. 1 of Tahsil Kharsiya District - Raigarh were registered in the name of Kushal Singh and Bhuteshwar Singh. After death of Kushal Singh and Bhuteshwar Singh names of legal representatives were recorded in the revenue record but fraudulently the widow of Kushal Singh got registered her name in the revenue record. The Plaintiff never objected in recording the name of defendant No. 2 in revenue record due to love and affection between mother and son and also it is responsibility of the son to take care of his mother. Defendant No. 2 was never in possession of the suit property and has not done any agricultural work over there.