GANGABAI TARACHAN Vs. SHOBHANLAL GYANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the defendants against the order by which plaintiff Shobhanlal's appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r), Civil Procedure Code has been allowed and they have been restrained from interfering with his possession on the lands in dispute and from alienating these lands to any other person.

(2.) Gajanlal and Tejanlal were brothers and they were holding 14.99 acres of lands in village Khutia, Tehsil and District Balaghat: Tejanlal had half share in these lands and that came to 7.49 acres. He died, Kamabai was his widow and defendant No.1 Gangabai is his daughter. Plaintiff Shobhanlal is son of Gajanlal Shobhanlal and Kamabai instituted Civil Suit No. 288-A of 1986 in the Court of III Civil Judge, Class II, Balaghat against Gangabai and three other persons. That was contested by the defendants. It was decided by the judgment dated 29.4.1989. A certified copy of that judgment is on record. It was held in that civil suit that Tejanlal had died in the year 1954-55, that is, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, his daughter Gangabai was not his heir, the lands left by Tejanlal were inherited by his widow Kamabai ; she became absolute owner of these lands, she executed registered gift deed dated 11-1-1961 marked Ex; P-1 in that civil suit in favour of her nephew Shobhanlal in respect of 7.49 acres of land left by Tejanlal, and the recording of the name of Gangabai by the Naib Tehsildar by order dated 24-4-1984 is invalid. After recording these findings it was declared that the said order of the Naib Tehsildar is ineffective and Gangabai has no right or share in the lands in dispute left by her father. She was restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on these lands by the decree of per- petual injunction. Para 3 of the decree reads <IMG>JUDGEMENT_450_CCC2_2002Image1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) Kamabai died on 15-4-1999, After her death the name of her daughter Gangabai has again been mutated by the Revenue Court in place of her mother by order dated 19.5.1999 and she is claiming partition of the lands. She is intending to transfer the lands in dispute shown in annexure 'A' to the plaint to other persons. Therefore, the present suit has been filed for declaration that the said mutation and partition at the instance of Gangabai are void and for injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on these lands and from transferring any portion of these lands to anyone. In this Civil Suit the application for temporary injunction has also been filed.