CHANDA BAI BHURA Vs. INDERCHAND BHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff, is directed against judgment and decree dated 17.1.2014 passed by XVIIIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.12 -A/2012.

(2.) The suit at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff was for recovery of possession of House No.557 situated in Sarafa Bazar Jabalpur, inter alia on the contention that the suit property was received in partition by her husband, who were four brothers. The partition took place amongst them on 30.12.1982 which was reduced in writing; whereby, the houses bearing no.675, 676 were partitioned amongst four brothers. Whereunder, plaintiff's husband got House No.557 (new number) and the defendant got house no.558 (new number). That there were two tenants in the House No.557 viz. Hukumchand Danga and Brijkishore Saraf, who were evicted vide decree dated 28.10.2000 and 22.2.2002 respectively, the possession whereof was given to the attorney of plaintiff's husband. It was further contended that the defendant brought a suit : Civil Suit No.36 - A/2003 against Virendra and others; wherein, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed on a finding that he has failed to prove settled possession. Yet, on 27.1.2014, the defendant broke open the lock and door of the shop which was earlier in possession of Brijkishore Saraf and forcefully took possession of the suit property by putting new rolling shutter. This act, as contended, was during lifetime of her husband i.e. Premchand who expired on 14.6.2004. It was also pleaded that plaintiff's husband had left Jabalpur and settled in Bhilai where he had constructed his own house. It is further contended that after the death of her husband, she came to know in October, 2004 of the unlawful act of defendant which led her to file the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on 14.10.2004. It was also contended that the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were also initiated before Sub -Divisional Officer.

(3.) The defendant, on his turn, denied the plaint allegation, contending inter alia that the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was barred by time. That, the plaintiff nor her husband were ever in possession of suit property which continued to remain in possession of the defendant. As regard to contention as to proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC, it is contended that against the order dated 30.8.2005, the defendant preferred a Cri. Revision No.325/2005 before the 12th Additional Sessions Judge who, by order dated 21.7.2006, set aside the order dated 30.8.2005 which, later on, was affirmed in Cri. Revision No.1439/2006, dismissed on 7.12.2006.