(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendants-appellants No. 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2001 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Satna, in Civil Suit No. 17-A/1999.
(2.) PLAINTIFF respondent (since deceased and represented presently by his legal representatives, arrayed as respondents 1A to F) instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with averments that the disputed land comprised in survey No. 14 in area 4.85 acres situated at Meeza Shukla, Patwari Halka Bardadeeh, Tahsil Raghuraj Nagar. District Satna was owned by his father Pardesia in Bhumiswami rights. After the death of Pardesia on 8.7.1995, the disputed land devolved upon the plaintiff being the only heir. Plaintiff had two wives namely Jalebia (defendant No. 1) and Punia (not impleaded in the present litigation). It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had no son from Jalebia so according to customs of Scheduled Caste (to which the plaintiff belongs) second marriage with Punia was performed with the consent of defendant No. 1. Present respondents 1D, 1E and 1F are the children of plaintiff from Punia, whereas respondents No. 1B and 1C are his daughters from Jalebia. It is further averred that Pardesia executed a Will on 17.6.1995 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became the Bhumiswami of the disputed land. On 27.6.1998 Jalebia left house of the plaintiff. On enquiry he came to know that Jalebia got her name entered in the revenue papers in the place of Pardesia on the basis of a registered Will 21.3.1990 alleged to have been executed by Pardesia in favour of Jalebia. Pursuant thereto, Jalebia sold the disputed land to defendants No. 2 and 3 (present appellants) vide registered sale deed dated 29.6.1998. Plaintiff disputed the factum and validity of the registered Will dated 21.3.1990 and contended that the mutation in favour of Jalebia was made on the basis of fraud and forgery. Moreover, the sale in favour of the present appellant is also in contravention of section 165 (4) (7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'MPLR Code'), because no permission from the Collector was obtained. It is also bad in law for want of title. The defendants appellants have forcibly occupied the suit land despite interim injunction dated 18.1.2000 and they are liable to restore possession. It has also been assailed for want of payment of consideration. It is lastly contended that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land and is entitled to restoration of possession on account of having been dispossessed forcibly during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff has claimed for the following reliefs :
(3.) LEARNED trial Judge after recording the evidence decreed the suit in favour of Ram Vishal (original plaintiff). It has been held by learned trial Judge that both the parties have failed to establish their respective Wills. However, the plaintiff has been held to be Bhumiswami by virtue of natural succession. Accordingly, the registered sale deed dated 27.6.1998 was declared illegal and ineffective. The plaintiff was held entitled to get possession of the suit land. Accordingly, defendants No. 2 and 3 were directed to refund the consideration to defendant No.1.