(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 24/6/2004, passed by 6th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Rewa in Civil Appeal No.43-A/04 whereby confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 28/1/2000, passed by 5th Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa, in Civil Suit No.225-A/1998 whereby the suit filed for declaration of 1/3rd share in the land survey no.204 area 0.85 acre situated in village (Mauja) Padra was decreed.
(2.) The facts in short are that, the land in question belonged to deceased-Vindheshwari Prasad, who was succeeded by his wife Mst. Sukhrajua (defendant 1) and two daughters Smt. Ramkali (defendant 2) and Smt. Murtikumari (plaintiff). The defendants 3-5 are sons of defendant 2-Smt. Ramkali. Vindheshwari Prasad died on 12/9/1988, leaving behind him the land survey No.204 area 0.85 acre, situated in Village (Mauja) Padra, Tehsil Huzur, Distrit Rewa. It is alleged in the plaint that after death of Vindheshwari Prasad, the plaintiff and defendants 1-2 are having 1/3rd share each and the defendants 3" "6 or any other person have no right and Vindheshwari Prasad never executed any deed of transfer/agreement or Will. It is also alleged in the plaint that the husband of defendant 2" "Ramkali got a false and fabricated agreement (Ex.D-1) prepared and thereafter, got fabricated a Will (Ex.D-2) and on that basis tried to get the name of defendants 3" "5 mutated over the land in question. On inter alia allegations, the plaintiff prayed for declaration that she is Bhoomiswami over 1/3rd share and in possession.
(3.) The defendants 2" "5 filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that Vindheshwari Prasad in his life time executed a Will on 23/8/1988 in favour of defendants 3-5 and after death of Vindheshwari Prasad, they are Bhoomiswami and in possession of the land in question. It was also contended that neither the plaintiff nor defendants 1" "2 are owner or in possession and are not entitled for any declaration. It was also contended that the suit land is a residential plot in which two houses and boundary wall is constructed which are having value of about Rs.9.00 lacs. Accordingly, it was contended that the suit has not been valued properly and the learned Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction.