KUMARI REETA Vs. VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Krishnaji Khare for the respondents.

(2.) The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2018/20.8.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 2 Ghazipur whereby the Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2017 field by the appellant has been dismissed and the decree of the trial court dated 25.9.2017 rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been affirmed. The fact as reflect from the record are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed executed by her mother Smt. Mewati Devi on 9.12.2013 (registered on 10.12.2013) in favour of the defendant -respondent first set i.e. defendant nos. 1 to 3. It was stated in the plaint that admittedly Gorakh father of the plaintiff, was recorded 'bhumidhar' of the land in suit who died on 16.1.2010. After his death, his widow Mewati, defendant second set, applied for mutation which was allowed by the concerned Tehshildar vide order dated 22.2.2010 and her name was recorded in the revenue record in place of Gorakh. The plaintiff-appellant being a daughter of Gorakh and the defendant second set Mewati, claims to be the co-bhumidhar of the disputed land.

(3.) Plaintiff's claimed that in view of Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act), the name of her mother Mewati has been fraudulently recorded in the revenue record although she is co-sharer along with her mother having half share in the disputed land. It is further stated in the plaint that her mother-Mewati had executed the sale-deed in favour of the defendant first set beyond her share for which she has got no right and as such the sale-deed beyond her share is a void and therefore, the relief for cancellation of sale deed, was claimed.