PUSHPADEVI Vs. HARVILAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid two appeals (Misc. Appeal No.260/2012 and Misc. Appeal No.261/2012).

(2.) These appeals under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(u) of C.P.C. through inter-pleader have been submitted against a common order dated 24th January 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 26/2009 and 27/2009 of the Additional District Judge, Gohad, district Bhind, allowing thereby an application preferred by the appellant under Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. and allowing her to be impleaded as a defendant while making remand of the entire case to the learned trial court for afresh decision, after setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 31st August 2009. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come to this court with certain reliefs.

(3.) Bare facts necessary for determination of this controversy can now be stated. The plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 3 instituted a suit against defendants/respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 (in Misc. Appeal No.260/12) for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the agricultural land comprised in Survey Nos. 33, 51, 62, 430, 432, 434, 1004, 1007, 1008 and 1210, total area 3.36 hector, situated in village Achaya Tehsil Gohad, district Bhind which was subject matter of the suit. The said disputed land earlier was owned by Gangaram, father of the plaintiffs and Tej Singh. After death of Gangaram, plaintiffs and Tej Singh became the owners of the land with equal share of 1/4th in the suit property. The suit land was partitioned in the year 1994 and pursuant thereto the mutation proceedings took place. It was alleged that by the defendant No.1 that she was not given share as per the agreement made between her father and the plaintiff Harvilas. On the contrary, plaintiff Harvilas pleads that the father of defendant No.1 being Karta of the family made partition of the property which was not proper and he played fraud with his rights.