SAVITRI Vs. RAGUVEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendants, who have lost from both the Courts below.

(2.) THE respondents No. 1 - Raghuveer, who was plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representantives widow Smt. Savitri Bai, sons Anil and Pradeep have been arrayed as legal representatives No. 1 to 3. Plaintiff-Raghuveer alongwith Shriram (respondent No. 2), Shyam Sundar (respondent No. 3), Rammurty (respondent No. 4), Mahila Lapwahawali and Prabhudayal (respondent No. 5) filed a suit against the appellants who were arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2 and also against Choti Bai (respondent No. 6), Ramkali (respondent No. 7), Ramdevi (respondent No. 8) whose legal respresentatives are respondents No. 8 (a) to 8 (c), Suresh Babu (respondent No. 9) and Ramesh Babu (respondent No. 10).

(3.) ACCORDING to plaintiffs the defendants who are claiming through Deendayal are having only l/3rd right in the entire suit property and that l/3rd share of the Deendanyal was already given to him in partition which took place long back in Samvat 1998 (corresponding year 1941). The mother of the defendant No.l-Mahila Savitri namely Premkunwar sold the part of entire suit property vide registered sale deed dated 25.10.1978 (Ex.P-1) to the husband of her daughter Mahila Savitri namely Devi Dayal (defendant No. 2) and vide registered sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 25.10.1978 she further sold the rest part of the suit property to another daughter Choti Bai for which she was not having any right because she was already having l/3rd right in the entire suit property which was devolved in her from her husband Deendayal who got this l/3rd share in the partition held in Samvat 1998, hence, according to plaintiffs, she could have sold only Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 which fell in the share of her husband Deendayal and which is 1/3 rd portion of the entire suit property. Hence, it has been prayed by the plaintiffs that it be declared that Survey Nos. 61,62,63,64,65 and 297 and 298 were partitioned earlier and accordingly the plaintiffs are the owners of Survey Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 297 and on these survey numbers defendants are not having any right title and interest and the survey numbers 61, 62 and 298 are in the ownership and possession of the defendants. Further it has been prayed that up to that extent the registered sale deed executed by Premkunwar in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3 on 25.10.1978 be declared null and void against the plaintiffs.