SAMARI BAI Vs. MAHTARIN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by plaintiff/ appellant is as under:- "Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree of the trial Court without meeting the reasonings recorded by the trial Court for decreeing the suit" (For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court).

(2.) The original plaintiff Samari Bai is the daughter of Chanduram whereas defendant No. 1 is the daughter of Sunhare. Chanduram and Sunhare, both were brothers and Samari Bai (plaintiff herein) has filed a suit that the suit land was originally recorded in the name of Respondent No. 1 in the year 1940- 41 in the revenue records which is the self acquired property of her father Chanduram and after his death in the year 1948- 49, she has succeeded the suit property. It was further pleaded that at the instance of defendant No. 1, the order of partition was passed by the Tehsildar on 15.09.1994 which was challenged in appeal before the SDO and which was dismissed on 03.04.1994 and revision thereagainst was also dismissed by the Revisional Commissioner on 29.05.1997 necessitating the filing of suit declaring that the name of defendant No. 1 declared illegal and the order dated 03.04.1985 passed by the SDO affirming the order of Tehsildar directing partition also be declared illegal and she is the exclusive owner of the suit land and her confirmation be also declared, in alternative possession from defendant No. 1 be given to her along with permanent injunction. Defendant No. 1 has filed her separate written statement and denied the plaint allegations stating inter alia that her name and her father's name was also recorded along with the plaintiff's father's name and as such, she is cultivating over the suit land and therefore she is the title holder of the suit land and the suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had possession over the suit land and suit is barred by limitation. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove her exclusive title over the suit land.