NARAYAN DAS Vs. MAHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under section 100 of C.P.C assails concurrent findings arrived at by both the two Courts below, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of ownership of the suit land and declaring the order of partition of Tahsildar dated 16.3.2003 as null and void and of permanent injunction against the defendants has been rejected.

(2.) THE factual matrix involved in the instant appeal is that the plaintiff is the father of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No. 1 in collusion with the revenue authority has partitioned the land of the plaintiff by invoking section 178 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Tahsildar by passing the order dated 16.3.2003 under section 178 of MPLRC has partitioned the property of the plaintiff where the defendant No. 1 who is said to be the sole legal heir received 7.199 Hectare of land leaving only 0.052 Hectare of land for the plaintiff.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff/appellant primarily contends that order of the Tahsildar of partition under section 178 of MPLRC is passed in violation of the rules framed under section 178 of MPLRC for partition of holdings during the life time of the Bhumiswami. It is contended that the said rules prescribe for partition amongst the parties in proportion to the share held by them. Thus, it is contended that the rules do not prescribe for disproportioned partition of the share, which has been done by the Tahsildar. Learned counsel further contended that since the defendant No. 1 was the sole legal heir of plaintiff she could not have received more than 50% of the holdings leaving at least 50% for plaintiff. But. the Tahsildar by the impugned order has given much more than 50 %.