SMT. BRAHMO AND ANR. Vs. PUSAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

(2.) THESE second appeals arise out of two suits i.e. O.S. No. 632 of 1981 filed by the Appellant against the Respondents and O.S. No. 466 of 1982 filed by Jai Singh and Ors. the Respondents in these appeals against the Appellants. Both the suits were consolidated and decided by Munsif Court No. 1 Meerut on 14.01.1985. Both the suits were dismissed. Thereafter, two civil appeals were filed being Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1985 filed by Jai Singh and Ors. and the other being Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1985 filed by the Appellants of the second appeal. Civil Judge, Meerut through judgment and decree dated 12.04.1989 decided both the appeals. Appeal No. 64 of 1985 filed by the Appellants (against the dismissal of their suit) was dismissed. However, appeal No. 25 of 1985 filed by Jai Singh and other Respondents (against dismissal of their suit) was allowed and their suit (O.S. No. 466 of 1982) was decreed. The said suit was for permanent injunction hence appellate court restrained the Defendants of the said suit i.e. Appellants of second appeal from interfering in the possession of Jai Singh and Ors. over the land in dispute.

(3.) THE dispute relates to agricultural land having an area of 11 bigha and odd and comprised in plot No. 338 Aa and 338 Ba of which Pusan was bhumidhar. The case of the Appellants was that as Pusan their father was not having any son hence even after their marriages they continued to reside with their father along with their husbands and they were given possession of the land in dispute by their father and as they were in possession for 30 years hence they had become bhumidhars thereof. However in the revenue record the name of their father Pusan continued to be recorded. It was further pleaded that the Appellants along with their husbands were cultivating the land in dispute. Further, case was that Pusan was 80 years of age and due to age his mind was quite weak and advantage of the same was taken by the Respondents, Jai Singh and Nanak Chandra, who were grand sons of real brother of Pusan, and got a Will executed by him of two bigha 10 biswas land on 19.02.1976 and a gift deed of the entire land on 01.03.1982 in the same manner. The Appellants through their suit (O.S. No. 632 of 1981) sought cancellation of the gift deed and the declaration that it was void. The relief of injunction seeking to restrain the Respondents from interfering in their possession was also sought. Jai Singh is son of son of Pusan's brother and Nanak Chandra is son of son of the daughter of Pusan's brother.