URMILA DEVI Vs. RAJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal by the defendant No. 2 is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 26/11/2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 14 -A/2008 by the Additional District Judge, Ambah, District Morena, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31/10/2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 12 -A/2008 by Additional Civil Judge, Class -I, Ambah, District Morena. By the impugned judgment, plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.

(2.) SUBJECT matter of the suit is an agricultural land. Plaintiffs' claimed suit land as ancestral property by stating themselves to be the members of Joint Hindu Family. The suit land originally belonged to one Dashrath Singh and after his death the suit land is recorded in the joint name of defendant No. 1 Mahadev Singh S/o Dashrath Singh and Rambai wife of Dashrath Singh. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 are sons and daughters of Mahadev Singh and plaintiff No. 1 is wife of Mahadev Singh. As such plaintiffs claimed to have equal share in the joint family property. They are in possession of the suit land and are doing cultivation thereon. It is further averred that the alleged execution of sale deed dated 7/6/2007 by defendant No. 1 Mahadev Singh in favour of defendant No. 2/appellant was illegal on the ground that they have equal share to the suit property. Plaintiffs have challenged the alleged sale deed dated 7/6/2007 said to be executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 on the premise that the suit property is joint family property. Each member of the family have equal share. Mahadev Singh had no right to execute the sale deed in respect of the entire suit property on his own. Neither has any legal necessity of the family nor any family debt liability to discharge. Further, Mahadev Singh, was a person of bad habits of drinking and use to remain intoxicated under influence of liquor, he must has not executed the aforesaid sale deed in his full consciousness. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs' share could not have been sold by him. He did not know what is good for him and was having no control over his mind.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2/plaintiff by filing written statement has denied the plaint allegations. It is submitted that sale deed dated 7/6/2007 was property executed by Mahadev Singh, who was competent to execute the sale deed. It is further submitted that the sale deed was executed on payment of full consideration of Rs. 1,76,700/ - as shown in the sale deed. Hence, sale was bona fide. It is denied that the suit land is a joint family property. It is also stated that plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 being daughter of Mahadev Singh have no right to maintain the suit.