MANIKLAL Vs. RAJARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court by which reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, suit of respondents-plaintiffs was decreed, have filed this second appeal.

(2.) SHORT facts are that, both the parties are closely related. Genealogical tree showing their relationship is as under:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_383_MPRN_2003.jpg</IMG>

(3.) APPELLANTS contested the suit on the ground that both the parties are closely related to each other. The genealogical tree, as stated hereinabove, stated in the written statement. They have specifically denied that any gift deed was executed in favour of plaintiffs. The possession of plaintiffs was also denied over the suit land. It was also stated by appellants that Budia alias Mahroniawali and Tidka were the owners of the suit land and after their death, all heirs of Late Puhkar succeeded the land, as both died issueless. But, Mirra, father of plaintiffs had got mutated his name alongwith Tidka and Mst. Budia mischievously without any right or title. Over the land both the parties are cultivating and are co-sharers of the land. With the aforesaid pleading their suit was contested by the appellants.