RAJKUNWAR Vs. SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-defendants have approached to this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code on getting unsuccessful in both the Courts below being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2-9-1997 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5-A/88 confirming the decree passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II Tikamgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 29-A/83 vide dated 17-8-1983 by which the suit of the respondent was decreed.

(2.) AS per averment of the plaint Shri Valdu, the father of the respondent No. 1 were two brothers. Said Valdu was elder and younger to him Shri Bhairav who had died issueless before three years while Valdu had died 25 years ago from the date of initiation of the suit. Valdu had one son, the respondent No. 1 and one daughter the appellant No. 1 from his wedded wife the appellant No. 2. There was a joint Hindu family of said Valdu and Bhairav, the same had agricultural land described in para 2(a) of the plaint bearing survey Nos. 241, 251, 314 to 318 to 889, survey No. 20, Total area 2.952 hectare, land revenue 28.68 as absolute property while had half share in survey No. 213, area 0.134 and had 1/15th share in survey Nos. 245 and 250. The total area 0.092 hectare. The same was recorded in the name of aforesaid both the brothers. Beside aforesaid, the land bearing survey Nos. 312, 313, 470, 209, 24/K, 211 and 909, survey No. 9 total, area 4.214 hectare the land revenue 9.77 described in para 3(a) of the plaint was exclusive property of said Shri Bhairav and the same was recorded in his name. They had two houses of said family in the same village as pleaded in para 4(a) of the plaint as described in Annexure (Ka) and (kha) of the same.

(3.) THE appellant No. 1 has sold his share of the land inherited from the father Valdu to respondent No. 1 in consideration of Rs. 1500/- vide registered sale deed dated 17-5-1978. The possession of the same has also been delivered to him. Since then he is in possession. But in the year 1981 the respondent No. 1 was told by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that they had the ownership of 3/4th share in the disputed property, while he has only 1/4th share in it. Then only he came to know that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had got the mutation in the revenue record, vide dated 16-11-1978 as told by them without any intimation to respondent No. 1 and on such mutation, the appellant No. 1 had transferred the same to her sons, the appellant Nos. 3 to 5 and got it mutated in their names. Then the respondent has initiated the suit as said above.