RAMRATI SHARMA Vs. SHEELA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 22-4-1998 passed by First ADJ, Morena, in Civil Suit no. 18-A of 2001 whereby, the suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and injunction pertaining to 1/3rd share of disputed property has been dismissed.

(2.) ADMITTED facts are that the plaintiffs/appellants and defendant no. 1/respondent No. 1 are real sisters. They are daughters of late Kalika Prasad. Jodharam and Harpal were real brothers. Jagannath Prasad and Kalika Prasad were sons of Harpal. Defendant No. 2 is son of defendant No. 1.

(3.) CASE of plaintiffs/appellants in brief, is that in ward No. 18, Morena disputed house is situated. This house was purchased by Harpal. Harpal was in possession of disputed house. The disputed house is parental property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 Jagannath was having one half share and Kalika prasad was having one half share in disputed property. The share of Kalika prasad is disputed property. Kalika Prasad was serving in military. After retirement, he constructed a temple on some part of the disputed property. In disputed house, Satish Chandra, Khoob Chandra and Kamal were tenants of kalika Prasad. Kalika Prasad died on 27-6-1991. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are successors of Kalika Prasad. Jagannath Prasad and his daughter have no right over the disputed house. Kalika Prasad had not sold disputed house to anyone. He has not executed any document in favour of any person regarding disputed house. Plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are owner of the disputed house of equal portion. On 5-8-1991, husband of plaintiff No. 1 Vinod Kumar Sharma went to collect rent from tenant, tenant told that defendant No. 1 is demanding rent from them. She claimed that her son is owner of the disputed house. She told that Kalika Prasad has sold disputed house by registered sale deed to her son pankaj Dubey. Defendant No. 1 on asking by the plaintiffs did not give specific reply. She denied ownership of the plaintiffs on the disputed house. Plaintiffs served a notice on 9-8-1991 to tenants Khoob Chandra. Govardhan, santoshkumar, Satish and Kamal to pay rent to them in future. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of their share (l/3rd each) in disputed house and issuance of permanent injunction.