PANNALAL Vs. MULIABAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 37 -A/1991. During the pendency of the appeal plaintiff -appellant was died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. Respondent No. 1 has also been died. The plaintiff -appellant filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He pleaded that Mulchand had three sons Deobaksh, Ghasiram and Pannalal. Deobaksh was died in the year of 1977. Ghasiram was died after completing 28 years of age. Deobaksh had left behind him his widow Muliabai and defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 Sheonarayan claimed himself as adopted son of Muliabai and Deobaksh. There was a Joint Hindu Family Property area 10.06 acres at village Ichhawar. In the aforesaid property all the three brothers Deobaksh, Ghasiram and Pannalal were the co -sharers. Ghasiram had given his 1/3rd share on the basis of a written document in favour of plaintiff -appellant Pannalal. He also handed over possession of the suit land. Since then the plaintiff -appellant was in possession of the suit land.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant pleaded that there was another Joint Hindu Family Property of Khata No. area 9.45 acres. The plaintiff -appellant purchased 4.63 decimal of the land on 23.08.1961 from Ram Singh and Shyam Singh. The land was recorded of the ownership of Deobaksh in the revenue record and the plaintiff -appellant has 2/3rd share in the aforesaid land.

(3.) ON 15.02.1977, defendant No. 1 submitted an application for mutation to the effect that her name be recorded as owner on 1/3rd share, which was in the name of her husband Deobaksh. The defendant No. 2 Sheonarayan also submitted an application for mutation on the basis of Will dated 13.05.1972, which was executed by Deobaksh in his favour. The Tehsildar rejected the application of the plaintiff -appellant and ordered mutation in favour of defendant No. 2 Sheonarayan. On appeal, the Sub -Divisional Officer set aside the mutation and remanded the matter back. The defendant No. 2 Sheonarayan had no right in the suit property. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff -appellant that the cause of action arose on 03.04.1979 and 15.06.1979 when the defendants obstructed on the possession of 2/3rd share of the suit property.