SUKHMANI Vs. JAGARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendants against the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jashpurnagar in Civil Appeal No. 9- A/94, dated 25-7-95 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25-1-94 passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Jashpurnagar in C. S. No. 169-A/92.

(2.) THE respondent filed Civil Suit No. 169-A/92 against the appellants claiming that he was entitled to succeed to entire 24. 15 acres of land situate in village Dandpani, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Raigarh. The suit property is detailed in Schedule 'a' of the plaint. The respondent stated in his plaint that he was son of Jatu from the second wife Sonamati. The appellants are daughters of Jatu from the first wife. Both the wives of Jatu were no more at the time of filing of the suit. Jatu died in the year 1978 and, therefore, it was claimed by the respondent that according to the custom among Gonds, it was Sonamati, who succeeded to the property and after the death of Sonamati the respondent alone was entitled to succeed to the property of Sonamati. However, the names of the appellants were mutated, after the death of Jatu, along with the names of Sonamati and the respondent, by mistake. The revenue Court rejected the application of the appellants for correction of the name. It was alleged that there was a village panchayat, but the decision of the panchayat was not accepted by the appellants and they filed an application for partition of the suit property. In Paragraph 21 of the plaint, it is alleged that according to the custom in the Gond Community, the daughters have no right to succeed to the property of father. On objection of the respondent to the partition, the revenue Court directed to file a Civil Suit to get his share declared. Accordingly, he filed the suit claiming that it be declared that he is the sole owner of the entire property and the appellants be restrained from interfering with his possession in the suit property.

(3.) THE appellants in their written statement denied the claim of the respondent and alleged, inter alia, that the daughters have full right in the property of Jatu, as the parties are governed by Hindu law. However, they alleged that the names of the mother of the respondent Sonamati, wife of Jatu Gond has been illegally mutated.