PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant / plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30. 9. 1993 passed by Additional Judge of Hard to the District Judge Hoshangabad in Civil Original Appeal No. 11-A/90 allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 and 2 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21. 1. 1992 passed by Additional civil Judge, Hard in C. O. S. No. 284-A/1989, whereby the suit of the appellant for declaration, possession and perpetual injunction was decreed by the trial court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case which are necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and perpetual injunction against respondent No. 1 and 2 for half share with respect to agricultural land bearing survey No. 163 area 9. 54 acre, situated at Village Karasni. As per averment of the plaint the appellant and respondent No. 1 being real sisters are daughters of deceased Mohan Singh who was the Bhumiswami of aforesaid agricultural land and also had a three Chasma house in the village. On account of his old age his agricultural operation was looked after by respondent No. 1 Shipra bai and her family members as he was residing with them in the village. The appellant became widow in the lifetime of Mohan Singh on which before his death she asked him to provide some help on which she was assured by him stating that she would take her share of the property from respondent No. 1. After demise of mohan Singh appellant demanded her share from respondent No. l then it was known to her that by taking advantage of old age of Mohan Singh Respondent no. 1 got executed sale deed of the aforesaid land from him in favour of her son respondent No. 2 on 5. 6. 1972 and also got mutated the land in his name. The alleged sale deed was executed by stating very lesser consideration i. e. only Rs. 4,000/ -. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 2 has not acquired any title or legal right in the aforesaid land. After death of the father the plaintiff is entitled for her share in the same. In addition it is pleaded that plaintiff does not want to raise any dispute with respect of the house property. With these pleadings by filling the suit plaintiff prayed for half of the share in the aforesaid land.

(3.) IN the written statement of respondent No. l and 2, the averments of the plaint are denied. In addition it is stated that in the year 1972 Mohan Singh sold the aforesaid land with his free consent and in consideration of Rs. 4,000/- to the respondent No. 2 through his mother respondent No. 1 as he was minor during that period. In order to perform the aforesaid sale he executed a sale deed and got it registered after receiving its due consideration. The plaintiff / appellant never visited the village Karsani to look after her father Mohan Singh on the contrary by raising some quarrel she had taken Rs. 1500/- from him after the aforesaid transaction. It is further pleaded that plaintiff / appellant did not have any right to demand as her share in the aforesaid land. As such at the time of death of mohan Singh he did not have any property in his name or title. On the strength of the aforesaid sale-deed the name of respondent No. 2 was duly mutated as bhoomiswami in the record of the rights kept by the Revenue Department. The plaintiff's suit is based on false allegation. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the suit along with Rs. 500/- as compensatory cost is made.