KAMLA BAI Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-9-1984, passed in Civil Appeal No. 56A of 1982, of the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sehore (arising out of Civil Suit No. 29A of 1977, decided on 31-1-1978 by the Court of Civil Judge (Class II), Sehore), whereby, while confirming the decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs' suit for possession of 5.80 acres of land, situated in village Umarkhal, Tahsil Ichawar, District Sehore, has been decreed.

(2.) Brief history of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit on 25-6-1975, with the assertion that Babal the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 2 Jhita, transferred the suit property to defendant No. 4, vide registered sale-deed dated 15-12-1966, and delivered possession to him. The defendant No. 4 transferred the suit land, vide registered sale-deed dated 10-6-1975, to plaintiffs and delivered possession of the land. However, the defendants 1, 2 and 3 dispossessed him on 21-6-1975. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per year.

(3.) The defendant-appellants 1 and 2 denied the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit property was joint Hindu family property of Babal and defendant No. 5 Umrao. The defendant No. 4 Prahladsingh married his daughter Kamla (defendant No. 1) to Jhita (defendant No. 2). Prahladsingh (defendant No. 4) had no means of livelihood and, therefore, he was living along with his daughter. There is a custom in their caste that the father does not take and receive the financial aid from the daughter and, therefore, the suit property was transferred in his favour on a nominal price of Rs. 500/-. Therefore, Jhita continued to be in possession all alone. The document was without consideration. The defendant No. 2 improved the land after constructing Bunds and well over it and, therefore, the defendant No. 4 has no right to transfer the property in favour of plaintiffs. The defendant No. 4 did not file his written statement and remained ex parte. The defendant No. 5 filed his written statement and, while supporting the defendants 1 and 2, further pleaded that the suit property belongs to him and his brother. There was no partition between them. Babal and he were joint owners.