BALDEO SINGH Vs. NARBADA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also govern the Second Appeal No. 315/1991 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh as the same is arising out of the same judgment and decree of the subordinate appellant Court.

(2.) THE appellants-defendants No. 6 to 14 have preferred this appeal under section 100 of C.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1991 passed by Additional District Judge Panna in Civil Regular Appeal No. 22-A/1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1989 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Ajaigarh District Panna in Civil Original Suit No. 19-A/1987.

(3.) THE material facts of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 being plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and possession against appellants and respondent No. 2 to 6 in respect of agricultural land total survey No. 6 area 109.36 acres situated in Village Kamre-ka-Bara Tahsil Ajaygarh, the same was recorded in the revenue record in the name of respondent No. 2, Mohan, the grand father of respondent No. 1, beside this the land total survey No. 10 area 10.518 hectares situated in the same village, recorded as Bhoomiswami in the name of respondent alongwith his brothers Chandrabhan, Jugal, Lallu and Prabhu, the same was partitioned and respondent No. 2 has got the share for his branch. As per other pleadings the land being ancestral property was remained recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 as Karta of joint family. The respondent No. 1 has asked to his father respondent No. 3 and grandfather respondent No. 2 for separation of his share and possession from the aforesaid land. Respondent No. 2 was agreed to give him six hectares land in his share while he was entitled for nine hectares of land. On asking he was told that some of the land has been declared surplus and taken over by the State Government under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (In short 'the Act') and the same have been allotted to the appellants. Earlier it was not known to him as he was not informed by respondent No. 2 though the then he was major, married and had his own family with his one son and entitled for 54 acres of land for his unit but due to ignorance and inadvertence of respondent No. 2 his right was not considered by the competent authority under the Act. Such proceedings of the Act is not binding against him. In any case respondent No. 1 has a right to get 9 hectares land by holding the partition of the same and prayed for 1/5 share in it and filed the suit as said above.