SMT TULSA BAI Vs. SMT KAMLABAI ALIAS MUNNIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) learned counsel for the applicants. This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 16/05/2017 passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.351-A/2017, whereby learned Civil Judge rejected the applicants' (Defendant No.1 to 5 of the case) application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this Civil Revision are that non-applicant No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.351-A/2017 before the IVth Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur for claiming relief of declaration of title over the agricultural land survey no. 95/3, 95/6 and 16 area 0.356, 0.440 and 1.5 hectare respectively situated at Tehsil Panagar, District Jabalpur and also restraining the applicants from selling the suit property to others averring that the suit property was earlier owned by late Paramu Kevat and after his death it devolved in his son Moolchand. Non-applicants No.1/plaintiffs is the daughter of late Moolchand Kevat and applicants/defendants no.1 to 5 are the widow and children of late Jagannath son of late Moolchand. So after the death of Moolchand non-applicants/plaintiffs and applicants are the co-owners and each have share in the suit property. So it be declared that non-applicants/plaintiffs have 1/2 share in the suit property and applicants be prohibited from selling the non applicant's share in the suit property to others.

(3.) During trial of the case, applicant/defendant no.1 to 5 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averring that non- applicants No.1/plaintiff filed civil suit for declaring her owner of the suit land on the ground that she is the daughter of Moolchand,but she is not. Even otherwise according to Hindu Succession Act , 1956 (hereinafter called the HSA) before 2005 daughter had no share in the ancestral property, Moolchand died on 27/12/01. So non-applicant no.1 does not have any share in the suit property. Likewise the market value of suit land is approximately Rs. 5 Crore while non applicant no.1 valued the suit only at Rs.1000/- for deceleration which is not the proper valuation. she has also not paid proper court fees. The civil judge class II has no jurisdiction to try the suit. No cause of action arose for the non applicant no.1 to file the suit. So suit is not maintainable. In the reply non-applicant/plaintiff opposed the prayer. Learned Trial Judge by order dated 02.03.2017 rejected the applicant's application observing that non applicants no.1/plaintiff had properly valued the suit while other objections raised by the applicants require evidence to decide. Being aggrieved from that order, applicants filed this Civil Revision.