MAHESH Vs. RAGHUVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/defendants have filed this second appeal under section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th July, 2012 passed by the District Judge, Ashoknagar in Civil Regular Appeal No.3A/12 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14th December,2011 passed by II Additional Civil Judge Class, I, Ashoknagar in Civil Original Suit No.83A/2011, whereby suit of respondent No.1 Raghuvir Singh filed for declaration of his title over 1/4th share of the land described in the suit and pursuant to it for declaring the sale deed executed by his mother Kosabai in favour of the appellants to the extent of his 1/4th share to be void ab initio has been decreed while the same was dismissed for perpetual injunction holding that the respondent No.1 being the co- owner with the predecessor-in-title of the appellants of such land, is not entitled to get such relief against the co-owners.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit against the appellants as well as respondent No.2 and by impleading respondent No.3 - State as formal party contending that the disputed land described in the plaint was initially belonging to the branch of Arjun Singh, father of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 Vishveer in the joint names with equal shares. After the death of Arjun Singh, said property was inherited by respondent No.1 as well as by his mother Kosabai and they remained in possession and cultivate the same. But without the consent of respondent No.1, said Kosabai alongwith her 1/4th share in the described land had sold out the share of respondent No.1 also by executing a sale deed in favour of the appellants on 05th July, 2000. Subsequent to execution of the sale deed, on 25th November,2008 Kosabai had passed away. It is also stated that said sale deed was got executed by the appellants in their favour by taking Kosabai in their influence. It is also stated that in any case, Kosabai could not sell out the share of respondent No.1. It is also stated that respondent No.1 was remained in possession of his share of the land and still he is in possession. With these averments, the suit was filed for the above mentioned prayer.

(3.) ON behalf of respondent No.2 Vishveer, by filing the written statement the plaint averments were accepted.