RAMESH PRATAP SINGH Vs. HITLER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is heard finally at motion stage.

(2.) This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendant No.1 and 2 challenging judgment and decree dtd. 10/11/2000 passed by First Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.24-A/1999, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs for declaring the will dtd. 18/9/1985 as null and void, declaring mutation order in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of Will as null and void and declaring sale deed dtd. 29/2/1990 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and for return of possession of the suit land.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellants/defendant No.1 and 2 submitted that on 23/12/1994, the plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit contending, inter alia, that plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiff No.2 to 4 and that they all are legal heirs of Buddhsen. Buddhsen was the owner of the suit land, who died on 9/1/1988 leaving behind plaintiffs as his legal representatives. Buddhsen remained in the possession of suit land during his lifetime and after his death plaintiffs being his legal representatives continued in possession of the suit land. There was no dispute with regard to the title or possession, they did not immediately carried the mutation of their names. However, in September, 1992 when they approached revenue authority for mutation, then they came to know that the name of defendant No.1 Ramesh Pratap Singh had already been mutated on 30/5/1988 on the basis of an alleged Will said to be executed by Buddhsen. Based on this mutation entry, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed dtd. 29/2/1992 in favour of defendant No.2 illegally, took possession of the suit land and started construction over it.