AMEERA Vs. PRAHLAD LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by defendants No.1 to 6 are as under:-

(2.) The suit land was originally held by Sunder Lal. He had three daughters i.e. plaintiff No.1-Urmila, plaintiff No.2-Rukhmani and defendant No.1-Ameera. Defendant No.2-Ghana Bai is widow of late Sunder Lal and defendants No.3 to 6 are sons of defendant No.1-Ameera out of her wedlock with Dashrath. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 brought a suit for declaration of title that they have total half share in the suit land as shown in Schedule "A" annexed with the plaint situated at village Rajpur, area 0.68 acre, at village Dharigawa, area 17.88 acres, at village Nawagaon area 12.05 acres, at village Bamhanipara-Nawagaon, area 20 acres and at village Bamhani, area 11.60 acres, total 62.21 acres and further sought relief that sale made in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 on 19.10.67 relating to 11.60 acres of land alleging that the suit properties were purchased by Sunderlal in the names of defendant No.1 and defendants No.3 to 6 benami as the said properties actually belonged to Sunderlal, father of the plaintiffs and prayed for decree of partition and possession.

(3.) Defendant No.1 filed her written statement opposing the plaint averments stating inter-alia that the land shown in Schedule "A" mainly 20 acres was settled in her favour by registered sale deed, as such, it is her property and it was not the property held by Sunder Lal, therefore, that property is not available for partition. Likewise, 11.60 acres of land was settled in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 i.e. sons of defendant No.1, as such, these properties are not available for partition and it cannot be partitioned and the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and the suit deserves to be dismissed with cost(s).