DAYAWANTIBAI Vs. SARULA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21. 9. 1999 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Appeal No. 62-A/98, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25. 11. 1994 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Balaghat decreeing the suit of plaintiff has been reversed and set aside and the suit (Civil Suit No. 82-A/88) filed by respondent No. 1 Sarula Bai has been decreed.

(2.) IN brief the suit of plaintiff Dayawanti Bai is that defendant No. 1 Sarula Bai and defendant No. 2 Shisola Bai are her real sisters. Defendant No. 3 Sakharam is the husband of defendant No. 1 Sarula Bai and defendant No. 4 Guha is the husband of defendant No. 2 Shisola Bai. On 28. 11. 79 after making payment of consideration of Rs. 3,000/- she purchased disputed land Khasra No. 136 area 1. 68, Khasra No. 194 area 0. 42 and Khasra No. 195 area 0. 10, totalling 3. 20 acres of village Thema from her father Parasram. The land is in possession of plaintiff and is being cultivated by her. Similarly, on same date i. e. 28. 11. 79 she bought another suit land Khasra No. 195 area 0. 26 hectare of village Gudru for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- from her father Parasram. A house which is built in area 0. 15 decimal of Khasra No. 137 of village Thema was also purchased by her from her father for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/ -. The defendants have no right, title and interest on these disputed properties. However, they forcibly dispossessed plaintiff from the suit lands as well as the suit house. Hence the civil suit for declaration and possession has been filed by plaintiff. The plaintiff further sought a decree of Rs. 2,250/-towards damages of the crop and for mesne profits Rs. 240/- w. e. f. 1st July, 1983 to 1st July, 1984 and thereafter Rs. 20/- per month till the possession of the suit house is delivered to her.

(3.) THE defendants have filed written statement refuting the averments made in the plaint. In the special pleas they have pleaded that the suit property was of their father Parasram, who was also the father of plaintiff. The plaintiff after abandoning the company of her husband Netlal for last several years was residing with her father. By taking undue advantage of old age of the father, by keeping him in dark and by playing fraud got the sale-deed executed. A specific plea has been raised by the defendants that the sale-deed is without payment of consideration. On the date of sale Parasram was under paralysis.