KRIPARAM Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgement and decree passed by the Additional Judge, Sardarpur to the Court of District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 25 A/2006. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff appellant has lost in both the Courts.

(2.) AT this stage, the following facts are not in dispute: - The suit property is an agricultural land situated in Village Bhangarh. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. To understand the claim of the plaintiff the following family tree is as under : - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_392_MPRN_2013.jpg</IMG>

(3.) IT may be relevant to point out that on the date of the suit Pemibai and one of his sister namely Jamunabai has already passed away, therefore, the rest of the legal heirs viz. Dhapubai, Bagmal. Mangilal, Narsingh and Premchand were impleaded as defendants to the suit. The defendants No. 1 to 3 in their joint statement denied the entire claim of the plaintiff. It was denied that he was adopted by late Radhabai. It was also denied that plaintiff was the sole heir of Radhabai. Defendants No. 4 and 5 Dhapubai and Bagmal also denied the claim of the plaintiff. With these pleadings parties went to the trial on the following issues : - and adduced the evidence. Learned Trial Judge on due consideration of the evidence found that plaintiff could not establish and prove that he was adopted by Radhabai vide Ex. P/3. The suit was. therefore, dismissed. The matter was carried in appeal by the plaintiff but to no avail. The learned lower appellate Court on due consideration of evidence and material that has come on record found no illegality or infirmity with the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court, therefore, it was affirmed by dismissing the appeal.' Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_392_MPRN_20131.jpg</IMG>