LALA RAM Vs. SHYAM BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging therein the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 72-A/2011 dtd. 16/9/2011, whereby the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II Kurud, District Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2005 dtd. 30/4/2010 has been set aside and findings have been reversed.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

(3.) The facts of the present case are that earlier a Civil Suit No. 29- A/72 was filed between the parties claiming therein partition of agricultural land and house and for possession before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Dhamtari wherein the parties entered into a settlement and a compromise decree was passed on 11/8/1976. The suit property was partitioned between the parties and 1/4th share was given to defendant No. 1 - Shyam Bai to enjoy the fruits of the property during her lifetime and thereafter the property had to be divided between the remaining parties. Defendant No.1 sold part of the property i.e. Survey Nos. 1354/3 and 1467/3 total admeasuring 1.61 hectares through a registered sale deed dtd. 14/6/2005 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, therefore, the plaintiffs herein filed a civil suit for declaration that the sale deed dtd. 14/6/2005 be declared null and void and for permanent injunction as the sale deed is hit by the compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 29-A/72 dtd. 16/8/1976. The defendants filed their written statements and stated that by virtue of Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the defendants got exclusive rights over the property which includes the right to alienate the suit property. It was further pleaded that after partition, possession was handed over to defendant No.1 and the sale deed cannot be questioned on the basis of the provisions contained in Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The learned trial Court framed various issues and held that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 is null and void being hit by compromise judgment and decree dtd. 16/8/1976. It is further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of decree of mandatory injunction. An appeal was preferred by the defendants and the learned first appellate Court vide judgment dtd. 16/9/2011 reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the ground that by virtue of Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, defendant No.1 became absolute owner of the property, therefore, she had right to alienate the property. It was also observed that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 is null and void. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal challenging therein the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court.