SMT. VIMLABAI W/O LATE SHRI CHAGANLALJI & OTHERS Vs. SMT. MANGIBAI W/O LATE SHRI MADANLALJI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 08/12/11 passed by XVI ADJ, (Fast Track) Indore in Civil Appeal No. 15 -A/10, whereby judgment dated 29/10/07 passed by I Civil Judge, Class -II, Depalpur in Civil Suit No. 79 -A/91, whereby suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for declaration, possession, partition and mesne profit was dismissed, was set aside and the decree was passed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit against the appellant and rest of the respondents alleging that the ancestral house of the family of both the parties is situated at Pura Bazar, Betma bearing house No. 54 measuring 100 X 15 feet. It was alleged that in the said house each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also appellants are having 1/3rd share in the suit property. It was alleged that previously all the appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were living in the suit house, but because of financial crises each of the parties started their independent job, however the suit property remains the property of joint Hindu family. It was alleged that the appellant No. 1 has illegally inducted a tenant in a part of the suit accommodation. It was alleged that upon demand appellant No. 1 quarreled. It was alleged that the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be allowed and decree be passed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 holding that each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property. The suit was contested by the appellant No. 1 alleging that upon demand the value of share of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was determined and Rs. 12,000/ - was paid, similarly the amount of value of other share holder was paid. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, against which an appeal was filed, which was allowed and decree was passed, against which present appeal has been filed.

(3.) FROM perusal of the record it is evident that Madanlal, Shivnarayan and Chaganlal were three brothers. and they were also having two sisters Kamlabai and Jamnabai. Heirs of deceased Madanlal are respondent Nos. 1 to 3, while respondent No. 7 is heir of Shivnarayan and appellants are the heirs of Chaganlal. The burden to prove that the value of their share was paid to Madanlal, Shivnarayan was on the appellants. Learned Appellate Court found that the appellants failed to prove the fact that the value of their share was paid by the appellants. No documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants in that regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are based on due appreciation of evidence, hence no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in allowing the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and setting aside the decree passed by the leaned trial Court. Hence, appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same stands dismissed.