GENDLAL Vs. DEVKIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs / appellant was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The suit property was originally held by Anandram. The plaintiffs are his son and widow (now deleted), respectively, whereas defendant No.1 is his daughter. The two plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants stating inter alia that the plaintiffs (son and wife of Anandram), both, constituted a coparcenary, but the order of partition was passed by the Tahsildar on 31-7-2001 and 1.16 acres of land was given to defendant No.1, whereas, she is not entitled for the same and that order was also affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 31-1-2002. Both the authorities have ignored Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as daughter will not be entitled for equal share with son and wife, and therefore the suit be decreed in their favour.

(3.) Defendant No.1 filed her written statement and setup a plea that the plaintiffs have appeared before the revenue court and plaintiff No.1 also filed reply in which he has not disputed that defendant No.1 is entitled 1.16 acres of land and also not disputed the fact of partition and even he has branded the partition application under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 as undisputed and therefore the application under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 can be looked into by the Gram Panchayat and as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.