PARWATI BAI Vs. KRIPARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated facts relevant for the purposes of this writ petition are that the suit property earlier belonged to one Ramnath. Ramnath had a son, namely, Rameshwar Dayal and a daughter Parwati Bai. Rameshwar Dayal had three sons and two daughters. Kriparam is one of his children. According to parwati Bai, after the death of Ramnath name of Rameshwar Dayal alone was entered in the revenue record in respect of the entire property left by Ramnath. After the death of Rameshwar Dayal, Kriparam sold l/3rd share vide registered sale deed dated 10-09-03 to Raju Singh Bhadoriya (respondent No. 2 ).

(2.) IN the back drop of the aforesaid events, Parwati Bai instituted a suit bearing No. 6-A/04 (new No. 63-A/08) with an allegation that she had half share in the property and Kriparam could not have sold 1/3rd. This apart, it was stated that there being no partition, Kriparam was not competent to execute registered sale deed in favour of Raju Singh Bhadoriya. Accordingly, a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was instituted against various defendants including raju Singh Bhadoriya (respondent No. 2), who is the main contesting party.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, another civil suit bearing No. 9-A/04 (new No. 62-A/08) was instituted by Kriparam with certain allegations. He also sought relief that registered sale deed dated 10-09-03 may be quashed/cancelled or declared illegal and ineffective.