GHASITIBAI Vs. RAMGOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6-4-98 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/ 98 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13-10-97 passed by Second civil Judge Class- I, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 243-A/94.

(2.) BRIEF Facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows :-Plaintiff/appellant Ghasiti Bai filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in the alternative for possession, in respect of the suit land comprising of Khasra Nos. 292/3,293/3, 302 and 295/2, total area 18. 48 acres and the house built thereon, situated at village Surkhi, District Sagar. According to plaintiff, she is the sole surviving legal heir of her father, Late Pratap Singh, who died in the year 1963 and after his death, she became the owner of all his movable and immovable property. Her father late Pratap Singh also executed a registered family settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 27-3-61, whereby she became the owner of the suit property. Defendants/respondents had no right, title or interest in the suit property, but they threatened to dispossess her; therefore, plaintiff gave them a registered notice not to interfere in her right and possession over the suit property but the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 claimed themselves to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. They also got their names mutated in the revenue records in collusion with Patwari. Therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit against defendants before the Trial Court.

(3.) DEFENDANT/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 contested the suit before the trial Court and denied all the averments made in the plaint in the written statement filed before the Trial Court. They contended that their predecessor in interest, kashi Bai was the daughter of Late Pratap Singh borne to him from his legally wedded wife Sanjli Bai and Kashi Bai was the sole legal representative of Late pratap Singh. After the death of Pratap Singh, Kashi Bai became the owner of whole property belonging to Late Pratap Singh including the suit property. After death of Kashi Bai in the year 1965, her sons and the wife of her pre - deceased son i. e. , defendant Nos. 1 to 5 came to be owner and in possession of all the suit property and since then they are in peaceful possession and their names have also been mutated in the revenue records. It was further contended that after the death of his wedded wife, Pratap Singh developed illicit relations with one Sarju bai and plaintiff was borne out of illicit relationship of Late Pratap Singh and sarju Bai. Thus, plaintiff was neither the legitimate child, nor a legal representative of Pratap Singh. As such she had no right or title in the property of Late Pratap singh. Defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 also denied the execution of any settlement deed by Late Pratap Singh in favour of the plaintiff and contended that such document, if any, was got executed by Sarju Bai, kept of Pratap Singh, taking undue advantage of his old age; such a document was void in the eye of law and plaintiff did not derive any right or title in the suit property. After the death of Kashi Bai Defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the suit property as owner thereof to the knowledge of plaintiff and her mother and they perfected title on the basis of adverse possession. Thus the right or title of the plaintiff, if any, had come to an end and she was not entitled to any declaration of title or relief of possession or permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.