SEETA Vs. RAMNIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present second appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/3/2021 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 24/2018 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 29/9/2018 passed by the IV Civil Judge, ClassII, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Civil Suit No.39-A/2017.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case in brief are that respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 in respect to disputed land bearing Survey No.635/2 rakwa 0.210 Hactare situated at Village Jalalgarh, Tahsil Sabalgarh, District Morena on the basis of preferential right that the disputed land was owned and occupied by father-Gopi of respondents No.1 to 4 and appellant No.2. After the death of their father, they became owner of 1/5 share each of the disputed land as per Hindu Succession Act. The said disputed land has yet not been partioned. Joint ownership and possession is mentioned in the revenue record. In such circumstances, respondents No.1 and 2 have the preferential right to purchase his share of the land from appellant No.2/defendant No.1 as per Sec. 22 of Hindu Succession Act. He is willing and ready to reduce the said land. He had also conveyed this to the appellant No.2 in the year April, 2017, then he assured him that whenever he would sell his share of the land to respondent No. 1 and 2 on the basis of priority. Thereafter, appellant No. 2 sold his share to appellant No. 1-Seeta without dividing it, whereas, the sold land was joint ownership and possession land, therefore, co-partner has no right to sell the af oresaid land to any third person i.e. appellant No.1 as per Hindu Succession Act.

(3.) The defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed their written Statement jointly and denied the allegations of the plaint and inter-alia contended that it is an admitted fact that during his life time, their father-Gopi had divided all his movable and immovable property in front of the villagers and after partitioned, respondents No. 1 to 4 and appellant No. 2 got their respective share of house and land. It is further pleaded that after partitioned, appellant No.2-Dwarka sold his share to appellant No. 1 by registered sale deed. therefore, he has sole domain to decide that the aforesaid land would sell or not.