HARGOVIND Vs. SAGUN BAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant defendant has challenged the sustainability of the judgment dated 23.1.2012 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Khurai, district Sagar in Civil Regular Appeal no. 18-A/2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2007 passed by IInd Civil Judge, Class-II, Khurai in Civil Original Suit No. 243-A/2005 decreeing the suit filed by one Sagun Bai, since deceased, the predecessor in title of respondent nos. 1 to 6 declaring her 1/3 rd share in the disputed agricultural land against her brother and sister, the appellant and the respondent no. 7.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that abovenamed Sagun Bai the the predecessor in title of respondent nos. 1 to 6 in her life time filed the suit against her real brother and appellant, defendant no. 1 and respondent no.7 for declaring her 1/3 rd share and separate possession of the agricultural land bearing survey no. 109/2, area 1.59 hectares situated at village Chamrua and survey no. 830 area 0.38 hectare situated at village Malasunedi, contending that land was recorded in the revenue record as Bhumiswami in the name of their father Sattu, son of Mohanlal, who passed away before ten years from the date of filing the suit, i.e. 20.12.2002. After the death of father, the name of appellant, Sagun Bai- plaintiff and respondent no. 7 wasmutated in such revenue record as natural heir and legal representatives of said Sattu. In the month of December 2001 on obtaining copy of the revenue record, Sagun Bai- the principle plaintiff came to know that her name has been excluded from the revenue record. It is further stated that on some occasion, the appellant asking her to get loan for construction of a well on the field and brought her to court and had taken her thumb impression on some papers. It is also stated that she has never left her share in the above mentioned land of her father in favour of the appellant. She being uneducated woman does not understand the technicalities of law. With these pleadings the aforesaid suit was filed.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellant by denying the averments of the plaint, it is further sated that the disputed land was bought by one Ramchander but by practicing fraud said Sattu had got mutated on his name in the revenue record. It is also stated that since 21.10.1999, it was known to the principle plaintiff that her name has not been mutated and recorded in the revenue record as Bhoomiswami because she herself appeared in the Revenue Case No. 07-A-06/99/2000 and by submitting the affidavit left her share in favour of the appellant. Accordingly the plaintiff voluntarily released her share of the disputed property in favour of the appellant. In such premises, the plaintiff is not having any share in the disputed land. It is further stated that the principle plaintiff- Sagun Bai was never remained in possession of the disputed land pursuant to it, she could not be deemed to be the co-owner of the land with the appellant and, therefore, she did not have any right to get partition of the same. It is also stated that on account of his long possession of 25 years over the land, the alleged right of the plaintiff, if any in such property has also come to an end. With these pleadings, the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.