REVABAI Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the appellant Rewabai. who is now being represented by her legal representative Suresh. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4th October. 1971 passed by the Addl. District Judge. Barwani. in Civil First Appeal No. 32-A of 66. whereby he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court which had dismissed the plaintiff respondent's suit for possession of the suit house, agricultural lands and cattle as per schedules A. B and C annexed to the plaint. which are in possession of the defendant and in the alternative for permanent injunction and declaration that the decree of partition in C.S. No. 1 of 38 is void and inoperative against the plaintiff.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal, may be stated, in brief, as under: Chhitar had two sons Roopa and Gopal. These two sons Roopa and Gopal had orally partitioned their ancestral property near about 1928-29. Roopa had two wives, namely Jamna Bai and Rewa Bai, the defendant. Roopa died in October. 1933. Admittedly the property in Schedules A. B and C fell into the share of Roopa. All these facts are not disputed. The defendant Rewa Bai filed C.S. No. 1 of 38-39 against the co-widow Jamna Bai for partition of the property in Barwani court, as the properties in dispute arc situated within the jurisdiction of that court. As per the decree passed in that court on 5-G-39 as per Ex. P/5. properties in schedules A. B and C were given to Rewa Bai who came in exclusive possession thereof on the basis of that decree. On 30-9-39 Hindu Women's Right to Property Act was applied, to Barwani State by Resolution No. 82/28-29. Subsequently on 1-5-41. by resolution No. 3014/40-41 it was extended to agricultural lands also. On 12-11-53 Jamna Bai adopted plaintiff Sitaram. who was her daughter's son of which the registered adoption deed Ex. P/4 was executed on 1-12-53. All these facts are also not in dispute.

(3.) On 30-11-1963. plaintiff Sitaram filed the present suit mainly on the around that after his adoption as a son by Jamna Bai. he has divested defendant Roopa Bai of the properties in dispute and that the judgment and decree Ex. P/5 does not bind him.