BUDHOO Vs. CHIRONJA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has directed this appeal under section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30/11/1994 passed by the District Judge., Seoni in Civil Regular Appeal No. 2-A/94, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26/3/1994 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Lakhnadon in Civil Original Suit No. 72A/92 decreeing his suit for declaration against the respondents.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant herein filed the suit against the respondents for declaration with respect of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 115/2, 117/2, 121/3-kh and 121/4-kh total area 16.83 acres, situated at village Pahadi, Tahsil Lakhnadon. As per averments of the plaint, the aforesaid land along with some other land total 41.80 acres was purchased jointly by the appellant and Mst. Ramko w/o Dharmu (maternal grand mother of respondents No. 1 and 2) from its earlier owner, through registered sale deed dated 12.12.1956 (Ex.P/1) in their equal share but the name of respondents No. 3 and 4, the sons of respondent No. 1 were also inserted as purcharers, in the sale deed with the name of Ramko Bai. Subsequent to such acquisition, in oral partition the aforesaid land was given to the appellant, while the remaining 24.97 acres of land was given to Mst. Ramko Bai along with respondents No. 3 and 4. Thereafter, in accordance with the aforesaid oral partition, the land given to Mst. Ramko Bai and respondents No. 3 and 4 bearing Survey No. 115/1,117/ 1,118,121/3-A, 121/4-b area 24.97 acres was recorded only in the name of respondents No. 3 and 4 and due to oversight and mistake, the name of Mst. Ramko Bai was remain continued with the appellant on the land given to him. Inspite such mutation the appellant is coming in possession of the disputed land under his title. Said Ramko Bai died in the year 1979. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, on the strengh of Will, as alleged, executed by Mst. Ramko Bai, filed an application for mutating her name with the appellant in the revenue record. The same was opposed by the appellant. In pendency of such mutation proceedings, the respondent No. 1 waived her right claimed on the strength of aforesaid Will and entered into a compromise with the appellant by taking 1.214 hectares (3 acres) of land for lifetime maintenance of herself. Such compromise was also filed in the Court of Tahsildar but, however, without considering the same, the name of respondents No. 1 and 2, was subsitituted in the revenue records with the name of the appellants and due to such mutation, the exclusive right and title of the appellant over such land became suspicious, on which the appellant has filed the impugned suit declaring him to the exclusive Bhumi Swami of the disputed land.

(3.) In the written statement of the respondents, it is stated that such land was purchased by deceased Mst. Ramko Bai for respondents No. 3 and 4. The entire consideration was paid by her. In such permises, the appellant did not have any right with respect of the disputed land. The name of the appellant was inserted in the sale deed as purchaser only with intention for taking his assistance to lookafter the proceedings of the Court and the offices. No partition took place between the parties in the year 1960. The respondents No. 3 and 4, being minor in the year 1960 were not having any right to initiate any proceedings for partition. The appellant has also not acquired the title of such land by adverse possession. Mst. Ramko Bai, by executing a Will bequeathed her property to respondent No. 1, her daughter, but such Will was not treaceable on account of theft, hence the proceedings of muation was also not properly conducted by them. The compromise in the Community Panchayat was carried out under the pressure and no land was given to her for her lifetime maintenance while the same was inherited by respondents No. 1 and 2 from their mother Mst. Ramko Bai.