KESHAR DEVI Vs. RAMILA JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs are as under:-

(2.) Manwa had three sons namely Sukdev, Jagdev and Jagsai. They had ancestral house at Akaltara and agricultural land at village Latiya, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa. The dispute mainly relates to the suit house situated at Akaltara. According to plaint averments, the suit house was partitioned between three brothers namely Sukdev, Jagdev and Jagsai and they were given their respective shares in the suit house. Sukdev died issueless. It is the case of the plaintiffs (widow and daughter of Jagsai) that after death of Sukdev, his share in the suit house was partitioned between Motilal, son of Jagdev and Jagsai and both persons took possession of their respective shares. In the map annexed with the plaint, share of the defendant No.1 (son of Jagdev) is shown to be ABCD, whereas share of the plaintiffs is shown to be CDEF. It is the case of the plaintiffs that original defendant No.1-Motilal (son of Jagdev) dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit premises necessitating the institution of suit for possession of the suit house along with mesne profits.

(3.) Original defendnat-Motilal filed his written statement and asserted that the suit house was partitioned between three brothers namely Sukdev, Jagdev and Jagsai 50 years prior to the date of institution of the suit and the plaintiffs were given their respective shares in the suit house. It was further pleaded in para-1e of written statement that Sukdev died issueless and his share in the suit house as well as land situated at village Latiya was further partitioned between Jagsai and defendant No.1 herein and the land situated at village Latiya was taken by Jagsai and Sukdev's share in the suit house was given to Motilal (son of Jagdev) and in token of the said family arrangement, Jagsai had executed receipt (Ex.D-2) dtd. 12/5/49 in favour of Motilal and as such, Motilal became title-holder of the suit house situated at Akaltara and thereafter constructed six rooms in the suit house by demolishing the old one and let out to the tenants, as such, the defendant is in possession of the suit house and the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree.