KAMALA DEVI Vs. MAHABIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's/ appellant's second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) Madho Koir had three sons namely Mahbir, Ramlal & Indirajeet. The plaintiff herein is the daughter-in-law of Madho Koir whereas defendants No. 1 to 3 are sons of Madho Koir. Plaintiff Kamala Devi filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating that she has purchased the suit land by registered sale deed (Exhibit P-1) on 14/3/1980 from one Chandrika Prasad and came in possession of the suit land, in which the defendants got their name mutated in the revenue records which led to the filing of suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land by purchasing the same by registered sale deed dtd. 14/3/1980 (Exhibit P-1) and is in possession and she has also constructed a well and courtyard on the said land and the defendants have illegally got their name mutated in the revenue records. On appeal being preferred by defendants No. 1 to 3, the first appellate Court has reversed the decree and held that the original plaintiff did not have any purchase money and her father-in-law gave money to her for purchasing the suit land.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by setting aside the well reasoned finding recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 & 2. He would further submit that though objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court was raised in the written statement filed by the defendants, but it was not pressed into service and as such it is barred by Sec. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court has to be set-aside and that of the trial Court be restored. He also submits that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court as the purchase money or the consideration amount was given by the defendants' father and the suit land has rightly been recorded in the name of defendants also and the plaintiff herself has admitted that the suit property was purchased by her father-in-law.