KUNWAR SINGH Vs. SUSHILA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' Second Appeal filed under Sec. 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dtd. 10/1/2022, passed by 7th Upper District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2019 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 26/11/2018 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 76-A/2011, whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of owner-ship, possession and permanent injunction has been decreed in their favour. [For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court].

(2.) Facts of the case, as projected by the plaintiffs, are that they filed civil suit stating inter alia that both the parties are descendants of late Jagatram. Following genealogy tree would demonstrate relationship among the parties:-

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 8 filed their joint written statement, in which, they did not dispute genealogy tree / relationship between the parties. They pleaded that the suit property was not ancestral property of the plaintiffs, rather it was self acquired property of defendant No. 1 - Kunwar Singh. They have pleaded that about 35 years prior, mother of plaintiffs namely Sagni Bai left the company of defendant No. 1 and she had been granted movable property in partition, she has also taken ornaments with her and after selling the same, she had purchased land in the name of her nephew - Sunhar. It is further pleading of defendants that defendant No. 1 had partitioned the suit property and granted it to his sons namely Ramgopal and Jaipal. It is further pleading of defendants that defendant No. 1 had purchased tractor for son of plaintiff No. 1 in lieu of land owned by Ramgopal & Jaipal, margin money was also paid by defendant No. 1. The said Tractor was purchased on loan, but, since loan amount was not paid by son of plaintiff No. 1 -Sushila Bai, therefore, that Tractor was possessed by Finance Company and loan was paid by Ramgopal and Jaipal by selling their land bearing Khasra No. 134, 135 and 280. As such, plaintiffs are not entitled to get relief sought for by them. They further pleaded that the suit filed by them is barred by limitation, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.