RAJKUMAR Vs. RAM BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/defendant 1 challenging the order dtd. 18/11/2021 passed by Principal District Judge, Mandla in MCA No.100001/2016 affirming order dtd. 16/12/2015 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Nainpur, District Mandla in MJC no.01/2015, whereby applicant's applications under Order 9 rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC and Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act have been dismissed by Courts below.

(2.) In short, the facts are that, the land survey no.517/1 area 0.849 hectare situated in Village and Tahsil Nainpur, District Mandla was owned by Lalman and Laxman sons of Imrat. Laxman was survived by son Dhanraj and daughters Ram Bai, Bhagwati @ Bhaga Bai and Khema Bai. Rambai and Bhaga Bai are plaintiffs and Dhanraj is defendant 2. The defendants 3-4 Ramprasad and Rajkumar are sons of Khema Bai. It is alleged that the land area 0.400 was of the share of plaintiffs' father Laxman, as such plaintiffs, defendant 2-Dhanraj and defendants 3-4 (sons of Khema Bai) are joint owner/bhoomiswami of the land, but the defendant 2- Dhanraj illegally sold the entire area of land i.e. 0.400 hectare to the defendant 1/applicant-Rajkumar vide registered sale deed dtd. 11/3/1999 which is void to the extent of share of plaintiffs and defendants 3-4 i.e. to the extent of area 0.30 hectare.

(3.) Upon issuance of summons of plaint to the defendant 1, the process server tried to serve summons on defendant 1 but because of his absence on the given address summons was served on his brother namely Ravi Pipare, however, none had appeared on behalf of the defendants 1-2 both, therefore, suit was proceeded ex-parte against the defendants 1-2 and after recording evidence was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 16/12/2014 holding thereby that the sale deed dtd. 11/3/1999 executed by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1 is valid only to the extent of the share of defendant 2 i.e. to the extent of area 0.10 hectare.