SALIKRAM Vs. MUNNI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiff in Civil No. 144 -A/1994 is against the judgment and decree dated 8/4/2005 in Civil Appeal No. 04 -A/2000 confirming the judgment and decree dated 8/4/2000 in Civil Suit Nos. 144 -A/1994 and 137 -A/1994.

(2.) PLAINTIFF /appellant Salikram had filed a civil suit No. 144 -A/1994 for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction against Bhuribai and Dharmdas. Undisputed facts between the parties are to the effect that the disputed property admeasuring 13 beegha 9 biswa in survey No. 685 and two houses (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') situated in village Manpura, Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri were of the exclusive ownership and in possession of Late Baijnath. Baijnath had a wife, namely, Bhuribai and lone child, a daughter, namely, Hanshmukhi. Hanshmukhi was married to appellant -Salikram in 1967, however, she died just after a year of marriage. Baijnath had died in 1980. After death of Baijnath, name of Bhuribai was recorded in revenue documents. By a registered sale deed dated 2/2/1983 the suit property has been transferred to Dharmdas. During pendency of suit, Bhuribai and Dharmdas also died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. Further, the suit property is in possession of plaintiff -Salikram. Plaintiff -Salikram filed a suit inter alia contending that after his marriage with Hanshmukhi, Baijnath had kept him in his own house and thereafter as per rituals of the community, he was taken on adoption by Baijnath. By an oral Will Baijnath had bequeathed the entire suit property to Salikram, hence, after the death of Baijnath, Salikram became the exclusive owner of the suit property and since then he is in possession thereof. It is further averred that Bhuribai has signed an agreement on 29/1/1983 with the stipulation that she will execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Salikram. Thereafter, Bhuribai surprisingly executed a sale deed dated 2/2/1983 in respect of the suit property in favour of Dharmdas. It is alleged that in fact Bhuribai was not in sound state of mind and Dharmdas had manipulated her and procured the aforesaid sale deed. Hence, the suit for declaration and in the alternative for execution of sale deed as per the agreement and for permanent injunction has been filed against Bhuribai and Dharmdas.

(3.) BOTH civil suits viz. 144 -A/1994 and 137 -A/1994 were clubbed, issues were framed on aforesaid pleadings, parties were allowed to lead evidence and after analogous hearing of both suits, judgment and decree dated 8/4/2000 was passed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Salikram i.e. civil suit No. 144 -A/1994 and decreed the suit filed by Dharmdas i.e. civil suit No. 137 -A/1994. Trial Court has found that Salikram has failed to establish that he was adopted by Baijnath or any Will was executed by Baijnath in favour of Salikram. The alleged agreement dated 29/1/1983 has also not been found proved as claimed by Salikram. Accordingly, his suit (Civil Suit No. 144 -A/1994) was dismissed. The Trial Court found that the suit property by registered sale deed dated 2/2/1983 has been transferred in favour of Dharmdas by Bhuribai. Accordingly, decreed the suit filed by Dharmdas (Civil Suit No. 137 -A/1994) with direction that the defendant therein (Salikram) shall deliver possession of the suit property in the hands of plaintiff -Dharmdas.