GULABBAI Vs. KAMLABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th February, 2009 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Khargone in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/09 whereby the judgment and decree dated 9th January, 2006 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhikangaon, West Nimar in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2001 whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that appellants filed a suit on 7-11-2001 for permanent injunction, wherein it was alleged that the property shown in Schedule 'B' of the plaint is recorded in the Revenue record in the name of the appellants and respondents No. 3 and 4. It was alleged that the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of rest of the appellants and respondents No. 3 and 4 was Bhumiswami and after his death, the property in dispute has been recorded in the name of appellants and respondents No. 3 and 4 being legal representatives of the deceased. It was alleged that as per family personal law, daughters are having no right in ancestral property. It was alleged that respondents No. 1 and 2 are claiming their rights illegally. In the alternative, it is submitted that being in occupation of the land in dispute because of adverse possession also the appellants are owner of the suit-property. It was prayed that it be declared that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have no right in the suit-property and the respondents No. 1 and 2 be restrained not to interfere into the possession of the appellants. The suit was decreed in part whereby limited injunction was granted to the effect that the appellants shall not be dispossessed without following the process of law. So far as rights claiming exclusive ownership of the appellants is concerned, the suit was dismissed against which appeal was preferred which was also dismissed, hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below so far as, it relates to determination of rights of respondents No. 1 and 2 are concerned, is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since as per law prevailing in the family, daughters are not entitled for the share in the ancestral property, therefore learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the dismissal of the suit is concerned, be set aside.