NANDKESHWAR Vs. LALI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 30/8/2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, whereby the learned lower appellate Court, reversing judgment and decree of the trial Court has decreed plaintiff's suit holding plaintiff entitled to half share in the property in dispute described in Schedule -"A" and also that the plaintiff is entitled to partition to the extent of her share. Learned lower appellate Court has cancelled four sale deeds Ex.D-1, Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 executed by defendant-Budhram (since deceased) in favour of defendant No.3- Nandkeshwar and defendant No.4 Ramdhan.

(2.) Respondent plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title and partition against Budhram (grandfather), Mangal (uncle), Nandkeshwar (son of Mangal) and Ramadhan (son of Mangal) on the pleadings, inter alia, that the property in dispute described in Schedule-"A" appended to the plaint was settled in favour of great-grandfather late Dhansai. The plaintiff's father Bhuvneshwar, son of Budhram died in the year 1959 when plaintiff was about one and a half years old. According to plaintiff, she was entitled to share in the schedule property as it was plaintiff's ancestral property and she was entitled to share by birth. The plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 is trying to dispose off the property and adversely effecting plaintiff's rights, creating cloud over the same. It was prayed that the plaintiff be held entitled to share in the property and entitled to half share in the property and decree of partition be also granted. It was also prayed that the defendant be restrained from alienating plaintiff's share in the property.

(3.) Defendant No.1- Budhram did not file any written statement. The other three defendants No. 2, 3 & 4 filed their written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and disclosed in the written statement that Budhram had not only two sons Bhuvneshwar and Mangal but also three daughters. According to plaintiff, after death of Bhuvneshwar who died in 1955, plaintiff's mother left the house and the plaintiff was also taken by her along with her. Plaintiff's mother started leaving with second husband and there only she was brought up and marriage was arranged. According to defendants, as the plaintiff's father died prior to 1956, she was not entitled to succeed to the family/ancestral property.