KRISHNA BHADORIYA Vs. GEETA BHADORIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 96 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant (defendant no.2) being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dtd. 30/10/2013 passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, District Morena in Civil Suit No.17A/2008 titled as Smt. Geeta Bhadoria Vs. Jitendra Singh Sikarwar and Smt. Usha Bhadoria whereby, the suit has been decreed for possession against the appellant (defendant no.2).

(2.) On perusal of the pleadings, relevant factual matrix of the case is that the respondent/plaintiff herein purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dtd. 27/2/2008 from its owner namely Sujan Singh, Shailendra Singh and Surendra Singh sons of Tej Singh. Shailendra Singh is the husband of the present appellant (defendant no.2). After purchase of the property the present respondent no.1/plaintiff initially filed a civil suit against the present appellant and proforma respondent no.2 for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the basis of the default and sub-letting. The appellant in her written statement denied the landlord tenant relationship whereupon the plaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that she is entitled for possession on the basis of title and ownership also. The present appellant/defendant no.2 came out with the assertion that on the basis of the partition deed, executed on 16/7/2003, between the family members of the appellant she has become the owner of the property and thus her husband and other family members have no right to alienate the suit property to the plaintiff. The partition has been admitted by the husband in an affidavit filed by him in a civil suit under sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act presented by the appellant. Thus, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is null and void. It was further contended by the appellant that after filing of the written statement the amendment application of the plaintiff was allowed, changing the nature of the suit, which was not permissible under law.

(3.) During trial compromise has been arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1.