LAWS(MPH)-2013-11-210

LALPURHAT Vs. BUTULLI

Decided On November 27, 2013
Lalpurhat Appellant
V/S
Butulli Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 CPC by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment dated 2.3.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.14-A/2010 by II Additional District Judge (FTC), Maihar, district Satna arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25.6.2009 passed in Civil Suit No.128-A/2006 by Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Maihar, district Satna, by which the suit of the appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) The original plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating inter-alia that the suit land was originally belonged to one Bajrang Singraha. That Bajrang Singraha had two sons Ardaliya and Mahanta. Ardaliya and his wife Dhokhiya died leaving behind the defendant No.1 Butulli, the daughter. Mahanta and his wife Narbadiya died leaving behind Ghinni, the original plaintiff, Chhotu, Salahi and Munna. It was alleged by them that the joint hindu family property was transferred by the wife of Ardaliya without consent of the other coparceners to Govind and Chunvadhiya. It was alleged that there was no partition in between the family members of the joint hindu family property and to the extent of share of plaintiffs, the sale deed could not have been executed by a coparcener. It was stated that after the death of mother of the respondent/defendant No.1, the name of the respondent was recorded in the revenue record in respect of the land and such an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was bad in law.

(3.) The suit was contested on the ground that no sale deed was executed by the mother of the respondent/defendant No.1 in favour of Govind or Chunvadhiya. It was stated that there was no partition during the life time of original holder of the land, but, after the death of the father of the respondent/defendant, with the mutual understanding, a partition had taken place about 35 years back and 1/2 share each was given in the property in suit, and since after that partition the suit property was in possession of the persons to whom it was allotted in partition.