LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-113

DARBARI Vs. ANNAPURNA BAI

Decided On September 12, 2017
DARBARI Appellant
V/S
ANNAPURNA BAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the Defendants' Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of 1908 in short) against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/2015, by which, the lower appellate Court, while modifying the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Civil Suit No. 30-A/2012, has decreed the plaintiff's claim in part by awarding her 1/5th share over the suit property.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the Plaintiff - Annapurna Bai instituted a suit for declaration of title, partition and for separate possession by submitting, inter-alia, that the suit property described in Plaint Schedule-A is the ancestral property. It is pleaded further that her sister Gauri Bai has relinquished her interest by obtaining 2 acres of the land from ancestral property, therefore, she does not have any interest over the ancestral property. It is pleaded further that when she demanded the partition from her brother, namely, Darbari, Defendant No. 1, however, it was refused by him, therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained in filing the suit in the instant nature.

(3.) The defendants have contested the aforesaid claim and stated that the suit property is not the ancestral property as pleaded by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the suit property was in fact purchased by defendant No. 1- Darbari and his father Parasram, therefore, it was their self acquired property, in which plaintiff has no interest over it. It is pleaded further in the written statement that the defendant No. 2 Gauri Bai has not obtained 2 acres of land as pleaded by the plaintiff, and pleaded further that he has obtained the suit property by virtue of will deed dated 21.04.2011 executed by Parasram in favour of defendant No. 1- Darbari, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share with regard to the suit property.