HIRIYA BAI Vs. BUTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/11/2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.09-A/2015 arising out of judgment and decree dtd. 16/3/2015 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Badamalehra, District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.14-A/2011.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff who has lost her case from both the Courts below.

(3.) The facts of the case, in short, are that the plaintiff filed a suit that Bharosa who is her father-in-law had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 04/12/2002. It was also mentioned in the Will that the testator has 6 sons and all the sons are married. The last rites of the testator were performed by the plaintiff and after the death of testator, the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute. The defendants in connivance with Patwari and Revenue Officers have obtained an order of mutation dtd. 06/07/2004 in revenue case No. 20A-6/2003-04 which is null and void to the interest of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that without any information to the plaintiff, an order of partition has been obtained on 30/11/2006 in case No. 2A-27/2005-06. It was claimed that the mutation and partition will not confer any title on the defendants. On 13/7/2011, the defendants tried to take possession of the property in dispute which has compelled the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration of title. It was claimed that the defendants were already given lands by their father and during the lifetime of their father, namely Bharosa, they had separated. The plaintiff had kept her fatherin-law with her and after the death of Bharosa, the plaintiff has become the owner and in possession of the lands in dispute. The defendants No.5 and 7 by sale-deed dtd. 17/4/2009 have alienated the Khasra No.121, 123/2, 125/2, 138/3, 131 area 0.225 aare in favour of defendant Kesar Bai and Khasra no.138/2 and 139 area 0.222 aare has been alienated to Puniabai and Tijiya. Thus, it was claimed that the sale-deeds are null and void to the interest of the plaintiff.