SURESH KUMAR Vs. SHYAM KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by plaintiff-Suresh Kumar under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.'), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dtd. 12/8/2013, passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.13-A/2013, whereby the learned Appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dtd. 9/4/2012, passed in Civil Suit No. 28-A/2009, has dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction by submitting, inter alia, that his father namely, Sant Ram was possessing certain lands in village Tekari and after his death, he (plaintiff) came in possession thereof. It is pleaded in the plaint that the Defendant 1-Smt. Shyam Kunwar, who was the wife of his (Sant Ram) elder brother namely, Uttara Kumar, had left the village and got married to one Ram Swaroop, and therefore, Defendant-1 was not having any right or title over the property in question. Further contention of the plaintiff is that Defendant-1 had initiated a maintenance proceedings against her said husband (Uttara Kumar), in which, the compromise was arrived at and Sant Ram, the brother of the said Uttara Kumar, had executed a nominal sale in her (defendant 1) favour, though the possession of the suit property was not delivered to her. It is contended further that after obtaining the revenue papers mutated in her name based upon the alleged nominal sale, the said defendant (Smt. Shyam Kunwar) was trying to alienate the same, therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained to institute a suit in the instant nature, instituted on 14/7/2008.

(3.) While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by Defendant 1 (Smt. Shyam Kunwar) and Defendant 10-Dharmin Bai that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dtd. 18/1/1983 and 27/1/1983, said to have been executed by said Sant Ram, the Defendant 1, has acquired her valid right, title and interest over the property in question. Therefore, the suit as framed deserves to be dismissed.