INDRAKALI Vs. RAVI BHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed at the instance of defendant against the judgment of reversal. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the first appeal which was filed by him has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree by decreeing the suit.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this second appeal are that a suit for declaration and injunction and for delivery of possession of Khasra No. 1349 area 4.09 decimal and Survey No. 1350 area 2.20 decimal be delivered to the plaintiff Ravibhan Prasad (respondent No. 1 herein). According to the plaintiff defendant No. 1 Indrabhan is his real brother and they were also having one elder brother namely Suryabhan, who had died in the year 1946. Further the case of the plaintiff is that the suit property (Survey No. 1349 and 1350) was owned by the father- in-law of their elder brother Suryabhan namely Ramsanehi. According to the plaintiff, Ramsanehi gave the suit property to his daughter (wife of Suryabhan). After the death Suryabhan in the year 1946, the defendant No. 1 being the elder brother got the suit property mutated in his name, although both of them were having possession on it. Apart from the suit property certain other ancestral property was also there. Further it has been pleaded that the ancestral property as well as suit property was partitioned between the plaintiff and defendant in the year 1964. The property which fell in the share of plaintiff has been described in para 6(A) while the property which fell in the share of defendant Indrabhan has been described in para 6(B) and since then both the parties are possessing their respective shares which they obtained in partition. According to plaintiff the suit property fell in his share in partition and he was accordingly possessing the same.

(3.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1988 defendant- lndrabhan forcibly dispossessed him from the suit property as a result of which he assembled a Panchayat and on being pacified by Pancha to defendant Indrabhan, the possession of suit property was delivered to the plaintiff back. However again defendant Indrabhan took illegal possession of the suit property by ousting the plaintiff. Hence a suit for declaration and possession has been filed by the plaintiff on 3-11-1988.