OM NARAYAN BOHRE Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD BOHRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2009 passed by the Court of VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Bhind (Shri S.C. Rai) the suit for declaration of title to 1/6th share to each of the co-sharers and permanent injunction against the defendants No. 1 and 2 not to deprive them of their share. In this appeal, the appellants are referred as 'plaintiffs' and respondents as 'defendants'. The admitted facts are that Ramsiya Bohre is father of plaintiff No. 1 and 2 was real brother of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 Brahamanand and Vasudev Sharma and defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 Rajendra Bohre, Vishambhar Dayal Sharma and Surendra Kumar Sharma. They purchased a piece of land bearing Survey No. 767 area 0.16 Hectare 70 20' vide registered sale deed dated 19.3.1979 Ex.P/4 from Mardan Singh. Names of the purchasers were recorded in Khasra entries. The defendant No. 1 has executed a registered sale deed Ex.P/3 dated 24.8.2007 of the disputed property in favour of his wife defendant No. 2 and her name is recorded in the municipal record.

(2.) Facts, in brief, of the plaint are that after purchasing the disputed plot by Ramsiya, Brahamanand, Vasudev, Rajendra Prasad Bohre, Vishambhar Dayal Sharma and Surendra Kumar Sharma, the disputed house was constructed by all the purchasers jointly. Every purchaser has 1/6th share in the disputed property. The plaintiffs are jointly living with the defendants in the disputed house. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the defendant No. 1 is real uncle of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 but he has intentionally denied the right to the plaintiffs and has sold the disputed property to his wife vide registered sale deed dated 24.8.2007 without taking any consideration and possession has also not been delivered to her. The said sale deed does not affect the right of the plaintiffs. When this fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 25.7.2007, they lodged a report to the police, on the basis of which, a criminal case under Section 420, 467, 468 and 120B of Indian Penal Code has been registered against the defendants No. 1 and 2. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction.

(3.) Denying the allegations made in the plaint, the defendants No. 1 and 2 have submitted that after purchasing the plot, the partition was made between all the co-sharers in the year 1990 in the presence of their father and the said plot was given to the defendant No. 1 and he became exclusive owner of the disputed plot. Thereafter, he constructed the house out of his own money. The defendants have further alleged that the defendant No. 1 sold the disputed property to the defendant No. 2 after receiving the full consideration and possession has been given to her. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 and 4 have no title on the disputed property. Moreover, the mutation has already been carried out in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the record of Municipality Bhind.