DHANIRAM VERMA Vs. MANOHAR RAO DONGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiffs under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code of 1908') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dtd. 24/2/2007 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.5-A/2002 whereby, the lower appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 3/5/2001 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II Raipur in Civil Suit No.2-A/1992, has dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the trial Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Plaintiff-Dhaniram (since deceased during the pendency of First Appeal, represented through his legal representatives) instituted a suit claiming ejectment and damages of Defendant Smt Chandra Bhaga Bai (since deceased during the pendency of the suit, represented through her son and daughters as legal representatives) by alleging inter alia that he purchased the house in question bearing Khasra No10/193(New No.10/125) situated at Sati Bazar, Raipur (CG) from one Uma Bai, widow of Late Paikuji Maratha under the registered deed of sale dtd. 11/7/1972 for a consideration of Rs.18,000.00. It is pleaded in the Plaint that after purchasing the suit house as such, he was in possession of its ground floor and was running a book shop therein, while first floor was in possession of Smt Chandra Bhaga Bai with his permission, who assured to vacate the premises within a month or two, but failed to vacate the same leading to service of registered notice dtd. 28/10/1972 demanding vacant possession from her.

(3.) According to further averments made in the Plaint, the suit house was owned by one Paikuji and after his death in the year 1946, it was inherited by his widow- Uma Bai (Plaintiff's vendor) and son Keshoji and pleaded further that his vendor Uma Bai has become absolute owner on the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956) and was entitled to alienate the suit house in his favour.