SUSHILA DEVI Vs. BALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and defendant Nos. 9 and 11 filed written statement, in which inter alia it was denied that the plaintiff No. 1 was neither wife of Krishna Kumar nor plaintiff No. 2 is daughter of Krishna Kumar, and the plaintiffs are not members of the joint family. An objection with regard to maintainability of the suit was also taken on the ground that since there is no partition among the defendants, therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs is untenable. It was also pointed that one Amravati was wife of Krishna Kumar and suit land is self-acquired property of Krishna Kumar.

(3.) The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.7.1995 on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record inter alia held that the plaintiff No. 1 is legally wedded wife of deceased Krishna Kumar and the plaintiff No. 2 is daughter of Krishna Kumar, and the defendants led no evidence to prove that suit lands are ancestral lands of defendants. It was further held that in the lands held by the defendant No. 1, deceased Krishna Kumar had 1/4th share, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit lands and the suit was within limitation. The lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.4.1999 inter alia held that the plaintiff No. 1 has failed to prove that she either got married to deceased Krishna Kumar or that the plaintiff No. 2 is a legitimate daughter of Krishna Kumar. It was further held that the suit lands were recorded in the names of defendant No. 1 therefore, the same is self-acquired property of defendant No. 1. It was further held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to 1/4th share of the suit lands. Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiffs was dismissed.