RAJESH KESHARSINGH DHAKAD Vs. KESHARSINGH DARIYAOSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by learned First Appellate Court dismissing the suit. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass. Suffice it to say that plaintiff Rajesh filed a suit arraying his father Keshar Singh and step-brother Babu as defendants no. 1 and 2. Since the suit property is agricultural land, the State of M.P. has been arrayed as defendant no. 3 in view of Order 1 Rule 3(B) CPC (State Amendment). The suit is for declaration of his share, partition and delivery of separate possession. According to plaintiff, the suit property which is agricultural land is ancestral property and because he is having 1/3rd share in the suit property, it be so declared and accordingly partition be effected by delivering possession of l/3rd share to him.

(2.) The defendants no. 1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. According to the defendants, the suit property is not the property of HUE Further it has been denied that plaintiff is the son of Keshar Singh. It has also been pleaded in the special plea that plaintiff's mother Sampat Bai is not the wife of Keshar Singh. In the written statement, it has been pleaded that defendant is having one son and two daughters born from the wedlock of Kanchan Bai and apart from these three children, Keshar Singh is not having any other son or daughter.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording evidence of the parties came to hold that Sampat Bai and Keshar Singh (defendant no. 1) are the mother and father of plaintiff and Sampat Bai is the first wife of Keshar Singh. The learned Trial Court further came to hold that Mamta and Pankti are the daughters of Keshar Singh from second wife Kanchan Bai. The second defendant Babu alias Sanjay is also the son of Keshar Singh but from Kanchan Bai and both the wives of Keshar Singh are alive. The learned Trial Court hence found that plaintiff is having 1/5th share in the suit property and accordingly decreed the suit of plaintiff declaring him to be owner of 1/5th share and further passed a decree that he is entitled for separate possession.