PRAHLAD Vs. JAMUNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 4/5/1991 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. (2A/78) 41 A/91, whereby suit of plaintiffs has been dismissed. It is undisputed that Gajadhar Prasad Lodhi died on 30.10.1976. It is also undisputed that after the death of Gajadhar Prasad, name of plaintiff No. 4 Parwatibai and Jamunabai was mutated in the Revenue Record as successors of deceased Gajadhar Prasad. Appellants/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of Tahsildar, which was dismissed on 13/6/78. It is also undisputed that Parwatibai was died during the pendency of the suit and name of appellants Kamlesh and Rajesh S/o Prahalad Singh was substituted as her successors.

(2.) Suit of the appellants/plaintiffs before the trial Court was that Gajadhar Prasad was issue less. He executed a Will of movable and immovable property on 20/5/1974 in favour of appellants and Parwatibai (since deceased). It is further pleaded that appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of agriculture land mentioned in plaint in para-2 and residential house at Beldhana. It is further pleaded that appellants filed a mutation proceeding under Section 110 of the MPLRC 1959 before the Naib Tahsildar, Deori. Respondent Jamunabai objected aforesaid proceeding and claiming herself as successor of Gajadhar Prasad. As mentioned in the admitted fact, Tahsildar had passed the order dated 31.10.1977 in favour of the plaintiff Parwatibai and respondent Jamunabai. It is further pleaded that Naib Tahsildar dismissed the claim of appellants/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 based on Will. They assailed the order in appeal but the same was also dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer, Rehli on 13.6.1978. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent.

(3.) Respondent/defendant denied the pleading of appellants and pleaded that being a daughter of Gajadhar, she is the sole successor of him. She further pleaded that at the time of execution of alleged Will on 20.5.1974, Gajadhar Prasad was not physically and mentally sound. She further pleaded that plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed property, however they are trying to forcibly dispossess her. On the basis of aforesaid pleading, she prays for dismissal of the suit.