MAHESH KUMAR PATEL Vs. MAHESH KUMAR VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Jijiyabai, filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in relation to the suit land situated in village Saunthar of Sohagpur Tahsil in the district of Hoshangabad. Alternatively, decree for recovery of possession was sought. Civil Judge Class -II, Sohagpur, by judgment and decree dated 13.08.1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 7 -A/1982 found the plaintiff's title over half portion of the suit land and accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit in part. Plaintiff as also defendants aggrieved by the same, preferred appeals. Appeal filed by the plaintiff led to registration of Civil Appeal No. 30 -A/1986 and the appeal filed by the defendant was registered as Civil Appeal No. 38 -A/1986 Both the appeals were heard by the Addl. District Judge, Hoshangabad, camp at Suhagpur and by common judgment dated 22.08.1991, he dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, but allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants. As a result thereof entire suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred these appeals. Second Appeal No. 493/91 and S.A. No. 494/91 have been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 38 -A/86 and Civil Appeal No. 30 -A/86 respectively. By order dt. 04.03.1992 both the appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law : -

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff Jijiyabai; disputed land having an area of 25.49 acres situated in village Saunthar of Sohangpur tahsil (Distt. Hoshangabad belonged to Dipiya Bai @ Draupadibai, widow of Laxminarayan. According to the plaintiff Dipiyabai died in the year 1960 and plaintiff being her successor came in possession of the same, after her death. It is assertion of the plaintiff that she became widow during her childhood and few years thereafter, she came to her father's place and started living with her brother's wife Dipiyabai. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that at the time of death of Dipiya, there was no close relation to deal with the property and as such plaintiff took the help of the defendant for management of the land and for agricultural operations. Case of the plaintiff further is that defendant used to give account of the agricultural produce and from that she was maintaining herself.

(3.) CASE of the plaintiff, further is that in the year 1980 defendant made attempt to receive the amount of compensation of the land acquired, but she objected to the same. This conduct of the defendant, according to the plaintiff, made her suspicious and when an enquiry was made, it was found that defendant has got his name recorded exclusively in the revenue records. In the aforesaid premises, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in the alternative for recovery of possession as also for restraining the defendant from receiving the compensation amount from the State Government.