FULVA Vs. KEMLAPATI LATE MANOHAR TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 14/1/2020 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Waidhan, District-Singrauli in RCA No.25/2019, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 15/5/2018 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Waidhan, District-Singrauli in Civil Suit No.16A/2013.

(2.) The appellants have suffered the concurrent findings on facts and laws of the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The brief facts of this case are as follows. The land was originally owned by one Manohar Teli. He had five daughters. They are Fulva, who was plaintiff no.1, Rajmanti, who was plaintiff no.2, Kemlapati who was defendant no.1 and the respondent no.1 herein, Budhani, who was defendant no.2 and the respondent no.2 herein and Sumari who was defendant no.3 and the respondent no.3 herein. Manohar Teli had 4.041 hectares of land in village Gahilgarh bearing survey no.2/2, 141, 142, 143, 348/2, 351, 350 and 405 in village Gahilgarh West. After the death of Manohar Teli his wife, being the mother of the contesting parties, continued to cultivate the land. After some time, she too died and thereafter the plaintiffs and the respondent no.1, 2 and 3 started cultivating the property jointly, such is the case of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The cultivation was being done by taking a share of 1/5th of each daughter. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that as each of them were staying in the respective in-laws house and defendant no.1/respondent no.1 herein Kemlapati was residing on the said suit property, she was carrying out the cultivation on the said land and when the plaintiffs asked for their respective shares of the agricultural produce, the respondent no.1 is stated to have informed them that in the revenue record her name has been mutated and therefore, she refused to give plaintiffs' share in the agricultural produce from the said property. In order to protect their rights, the appellants herein filed the aforementioned civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and possession. The respondent no.1 was claiming her right on the said property pursuant to a Will dtd. 5/7/1981 executed by Manohar Teli in favour of only the respondent no.1 Kemlapati. The testator Manohar Teli died on 28/10/1981 more than three months after executing the Will. The said Will, according to the plaintiffs/appellants herein, is a fabricated Will. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court believed the Will to be genuine and thereafter dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellants and the First Appeal.