ONGI RAM Vs. BHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dtd. 27/08/1999 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bastar in Civil Appeal No.8- A/1999 whereby the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dtd. 27/01/1990 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.56-A/ 98 and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The respondent / plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants / defendants seeking a decree of declaration of title in respect of the disputed property shown in schedule - A as also seeking declaration that Will Deed dtd. 11/08/1982 be declared illegal and inoperative and for recovery of possession of the disputed property on the pleadings inter alia that the property in dispute admeasuring 4.10 acres situated in khasra no.49/2 originally formed part of a large chunk of land admeasuring 8.50 acres situated in khasra No.49 of village - Ghat Lohanga, P.H.No.30, Tahsil - Jagdalpur. The entire land admeasuring 5.08 acres was self acquired property of plaintiffs' father namely Paklu. In missal bandobast (settlement records) of the year 1931-32, the land in dispute, forming part of larger chunk of land admeasuring 8.5 acres, was recorded in the name of Paklu. It was further pleaded that this land was self acquired property of Paklu, in which Paklu's brothers namely Ramdhar and Ongi Ram had no interest. Later on, however, on pressure exerted by villagers and other persons, though the property exclusively belonged to Paklu and that his brothers - Ongi Ram and Ramdhar had no share, a partition was got effected through revenue proceedings which was not accepted by the plaintiffs and it was challenged in appeal. In course of time, the plaintiff's came to know that after death of Ramdhar, though defendant No.2- Lachhindhar is claiming title over a part of the property in dispute on the basis of a Will Deed dtd. 11/01/1982 (Ex.D/1), it was never executed by Ramdhar and a fictitious document has been prepared. On such pleadings, reliefs as stated above, were sought. According to the plaintiffs, by way of affection towards their family members / defendants, a small part of the property, which otherwise belonged to Paklu, was given to the defendants so that they can earn their livelihood without giving up the claim of title over the disputed property.

(3.) On the other hand, the defendants in their written statement came out with a case that the entire land admeasuring 8.50 acres was jointly cultivated and earned by three brothers namely Paklu, Ongi Ram and Ramdhar and it was from their joint income that the property was purchased and cultivated. According to the then State's rule, in the revenue records, name of eldest brother i.e. Paklu was recorded but all the brothers were jointly cultivating the land and later on, name of other brothers were jointly recorded. The defendants further stated that in course of time, the parties agreed and on the basis of agreement, partition of holding had also taken place under the proceedings drawn by the revenue officers and the plaintiffs having agreed for partition and having partitioned their respective shares, were estopped from seeking declaration of title on the ground that the property belonged exclusively to Paklu and it was not a joint family property. Further pleading was that Ramdhar, who was residing with Ongi Ram and Lachhindhar, had, later on, executed a Will Deed (Ex.D/1) in favour of Lachhindhar and after his death, his share devolved upon Lachhindhar by way of testate succession.