DHORO Vs. JAGESHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendants was admitted on the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) The substantial question of law is re-framed as under: -

(3.) Four plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 20-2-1984 (Ex.D-1) executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is illegal and void and in alternative, also sought for possession stating inter alia that the property was held by Budha Bhuihar and he had three sons Chiru, Akal and Tilak. It was further pleaded that the suit land was acquired by Budha Bhuihar in survey settlement, as he was granted ryoti rights as shown in Schedule A of the plaint and it was partitioned among three sons of Budha Bhuihar and the land was being cultivated jointly by three sons of Budha Bhuihar, two sons Akal and Tilak died, and plaintiff No.3 is son of Akal and Tilak died issue-less. It was also pleaded that Tilak had divorced his wife in the year 1971 by way of chod chutti as per the customary rights and Tilak had executed will deed in favour of plaintiffs No.2, 3 and 4 on 30-12-1980 (Ex.P-1), whereas Tilak's wife Mankunwar (defendant No.1) had sold the suit property vide Ex.D-1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 which is illegal and void, therefore, it be declared void, as the transfer is hit by Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 which was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement stating inter alia that the suit land has rightly been alienated by Mankunwar in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.