RAMUSINGH Vs. BANDIBAI BUDDHA SINGH GOND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal, who have lost from both the Courts below. The suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed by learned Trial Court and the first appeal which was preferred has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal lie in narrow compass. Suffice it to say that a suit for possession on the basis of title and for injunction was filed by the plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 and 2) 31 years ago on 28.11.1980 against the defendants in respect of certain agricultural land, which is the subject matter of the suit and description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint. In the suit the State of M.P. was impleaded by way of amendment as defendant No. 7 according to the M.P. State Amendment under Order I Rule 3(B) of CPC.

(2.) The plain and simple case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was owned by their mother namely Chamelibai, who gifted the same to them by a registered gift deed dated 18.02.1953 and accordingly the defendants came into the possession of the suit property. Further their case is that after the death of donor Chamelibai, the plaintiff No. 1 went to another village and from time to time she was coming back in the village where disputed property is situated and both the plaintiffs were cultivating the land in question. The plaintiffs being the ladies, the defendants by taking undue advantage of their weakness took illegal possession of the suit property and did not permit them to sow the crop. The defendants do not have any right title and interest in the suit property and they are possessing the suit property by using their muscle power. Hence, the suit for possession on the basis of title (registered gift deed) has been filed by the plaintiffs praying that their possession be restored and further prayed to grant a decree of injunction restraining the plaintiffs not to interfere in their possession.

(3.) The defendants filed their joint written statement and denied the plaint averments. They also denied the title of the plaintiffs and further denied that any gift deed was executed by donor (Chameli bai) in their favour. By amending the written statement it has been further pleaded that the parties belong to Gond community and according to their custom which is a recognized custom, a daughter loses all interest in the property of her father after her marriage and the property remains in the family only, and further there is a custom in their community that a widow cannot gift the property left by her deceased husband and therefore even if Chamelibai has gifted the suit property by registered gift deed, since she was not having any right in the property of her deceased husband, she was not competent to gift it to the plaintiffs. On these pleadings, it has been prayed by the defendants that suit be dismissed.