ARMAN BEGUM Vs. SUKWARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1999 passed in Civil Suit No.11-A/1998 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur.

(2.) The facts of this case are that a suit was brought by Smt. Arman Begam, D/o. Late Fateh Mohammad and Mst. Saira Bano, D/o. Fateh Mohammad. The defendants in the suit were Dharam Sai as defendant No.1, Makhan Singh as defendant No.2 and Smt. Nyaj Begum as defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 was also daughter of Fateh Mohammad. The plaintiffs came out with a pleading that at village Katghora, Khasra No.169/8 admeasuring 0.02 dismil and Khasra No.307/2, 307/3, 307/4 admeasuring 0.28 dismil belonged to the plaintiffs as also the defendant No.3, the house and superstructure exists there along-with that it consist well, boundary, vegetable garden etc. It was stated that in the well the easementary right also was being enjoyed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs stated that all the property belonged to their father Fateh Mohammad. It was stated that Fateh Mohammad had two wives, one was Noor Bee and another was Roshan Bee. The plaintiffs were the daughter of Roshan Bee along-with defendant No.3 namely Smt. Nyaj Begam. Admittedly, the parties stated that they are governed by Hanafi Muslim Law and Fateh Mohammad and his two wives died earlier.

(3.) It was stated that another wife Noor Bee was ailing and by playing fraud the defendant No.1 and 2 in connivance with defendant No.3 got two sale deeds executed in respect of the suit property in the year 1992 and 1993. It was further stated that the suit property situates near Katghora Bus Stand and the sale consideration which was shown was meager whereas the price of the property so purchased was much higher. It was stated that the defendant No.3, Smt. Nyaj Begam, had executed the sale in respect of the Khasra No.307/2, 307/3 and 307/4 admeasuring 0.26 dismil for which the purchaser do not get absolute right over the property as the property was a joint property. Further it was stated that Khasra No.169/8 admeasuring 0.02 dismil was sold by a sale deed dated 07.11.1992 in favour of defendant No.1 though it was actually purchased by the defendant No.2. It was further stated that in the sale deed, the property was shown as open land whereas the house exists there. The plaintiffs further stated that all the properties were the joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.3, therefore, the defendant No.3 alone could not have executed the sale. It was stated that from January, 1996, the defendant started disturbing possession of the plaintiffs, as such, the suit was filed for permanent injunction and declaration.