SITA PRASAD Vs. RAMNIRANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no. 1 in this appeal was plaintiff before the trial Court. Plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and partition of the suit property and to give him possession over half of the property in question. The suit property is located in village Choura, Tehsil Huzur Dstrict Rewa.

(2.) Plaintiff before the trial Court has made averment that plaintiff and defendant no.1 are son of Balmik Prasad. It is Pleaded by the plaintiff that suit-land is self acquired property of his father and ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant no.1. Some ancestral land belonging to Balmik Prasad was directly mutated in the name of defendant no.1, but the said property is ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and there- fore, plaintiff is entitled to half share of property and possession over the said property. Defendant no.1 has tried to show that property has been pur- chased by him from the income earned from dairy. But defendant no.1 is unable to show the profits which are earned from the dairy business. De- fendant no.1 namely Sita Prasad who was DW1 before the trial Court has not filed any document to show that the land in question was self acquired property.

(3.) Plaintiff has filed judgement and decree passed in Civil Case No. 147-A/04 dated 10/7/06. In this civil suit property is same which is in question in the present suit. Learned trial Court in the said suit held that the land in question is self acquired of Balmik Pandey and ancestral property of Sita Prasad and Ramnarayan. It was further held that land was mutated in the name of plaintiff and defendant to get the benefit of Government schemes, but there was no actual partition between plaintiff and defendant. Learned trial Court held that mother of plaintiff Sumitra Bai plaintiff Niran- jan and defendant No.1 Sita Prasad are entitled to get 1/3 rd part in the suit property. It was further held that Sita Prasad was unable to prove that land which was mutated in his name is self acquired property. It was held that Sita Prasad, Niranjan and Sumitra Bai are entitled to 1/3 rd property each. Sumitra Bai has died, therefore, plaintif Ram Niranjan and Sita Prasad are entitled to half share of the suit property each.