MINTU Vs. SHIVGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this second appeal under section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 184-A/05 by learned Fourth Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri (MP) setting aside the judgment dated 11.8.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 181/04 by learned First Civil Judge Class-II and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondents No. 10 Gaur Ali, respondent No. 11 Kamar Ali and Mst. Sugra W/o. Mehar Ali and Saukin Ali S/o. Mehar Ali filed the suit for declaration and partition on the grounds that agricultural land bearing survey No. 579 to 582 and 587 to 592 total area 4 bighas and 3 biswas was owned by Mehar Ali and Roshan Ali having half- half share and accordingly, they remained in joint possession over the land in dispute. Mehar Ali died in the month of August, 1971. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Mehar Ali and are in possession over the agricultural land as Bhumi Swami and in the revenue papers, the name of the plaintiffs are recorded as half Bhumi Swami after mutation. The plaintiffs sold half share of the land bearing old survey No. 422 and 424, new survey No. 587 and 589 vide registered sale deed to Shanti Bai and Shafi Ulla Khan (respondents No. 4 and 5 herein) and purchaser became co-owner of the land. Roshan Ali, father of the defednats, challenged the sale deed of Shanti Bai and Shafi Ulla Khan by filing suit bearing No. 2-A/1973 and in this suit, the sale deed was declared as null and void vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.1976. The plaintiffs filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment and the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside vide judgment and decree dated 13.3.1978 and the sale deed was found valid and the judgment passed is binding on the parties and defendants No. 7 and 8- Smt. Shanti Bai and Shafi Ulla Khan are made proforma party. The defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiffs and interfering in using of the land, therefore, plaintiffs constrained to file suit for declaration of title and partition.

(3.) DURING pendency of the suit, plaintiffs sold 1 / 2 share from the disputed land in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 6, therefore, they were impleaded as plaintiffs.