PREMNARAYAN AND ORS Vs. CHIRONJIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 100 CPC by defendants No.1 & 2 is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 27/04/2017 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Vidisha in civil appeal No.24A/2015. The plaintiff/respondent's suit for declaration and injunction has been decreed by the trial Court in civil suit No.61A/2010.

(2.) Before adverting to the relevant facts, it is not out of place to mention that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are real sister and brother and defendant No.2 is widow of Shivcharan Sharma, their father.

(3.) The suit land described in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court was of the ownership and in possession of Shivcharan Sharma. Shivcharan Sharma passed away in the year 1991. Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that she has one-third share in the suit land left behind by her father late, Shivcharan Sharma. Defendants No.1 and 2 have betrayed the plaintiff, as despite share being given, they manipulated and managed substitution of their names for that of late Shivcharan Sharma in the revenue record without her knowledge and behind her back. She has all along been under the impression that the suit land has been recorded in the name of three persons, namely; plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2, as every year the defendants have given her the apportioned crops. In the year 2007, when she enquired about the tax (lagan) to be paid from the concerned Patwari, she was given to understand on 30/08/2017 that no land is in her name, as such, no tax (lagan) may be paid by her. She immediately filed an appeal alongwith application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, against mutation of the names of the defendants to her prejudice. The delay was condoned by the Sub Divisional Officer, Vidisha vide order dated 23/09/2008, however, on revision before the Collector at the instance of the defendant No.1, the said order was set aside on 02/01/2009. Against the order dated 0201/2009, the plaintiff has preferred a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. As the defendants threatened to sell the suit land in the year 2009, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking relief of one-third share in the suit land.