LAWS(MPH)-2011-11-82

DITYA Vs. KIDI PANGU BHIL

Decided On November 25, 2011
DITYA (DELETED) THROUGH L.RS.RICHHU S/O LATE DITYA Appellant
V/S
KIDI W/O PANGU BHIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff's against the judgment of reversal. A suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right, restoration of possession and cancellation of decree passed in Civil Suit No. 16-A 1981 (Kidi vs. Bucha) dated 25.9.1982 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Jobat (hereinafter referred to as "the former suit") was filed by the plaintiff's long back on 4.9.1986 (more than 25 years ago) on the averments that they are the heirs of Bucha who was owing the disputed land, the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff's, Kidi (defendant No. 2) filed a former suit against their predecessor Bucha arraying him as defendant in that suit on the averments that she is the owner of the suit property. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs were not the parties and therefore, the decision passed in former suit is not binding upon them. As soon as they came to know about the passing of the aforesaid judgment they have filed the present suit. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that suit property was owned by Bucha in which second defendant Kidi was not having any right, title and interest and therefore, by decreeing the suit, the decree passed in former suit be set aside and by declaring the plaintiffs to be the Bhumiswami of the suit property, the possession be also restored to them.

(2.) The second defendant Kidi filed written statement while other defendants filed their separate written statement. However, in both the written-statements the averments made in the plaint were denied and, interalia, a plea of res judicata was also raised. The defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiffs. However, in appeal filed by the defendants the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was set aside and suit of plaintiffs was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.