BHOOMRAJ Vs. KIRAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER 1. The appellant -defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Waraseoni in Civil Appeal No.25 -N04 affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2004 passed by Civil Judge Class I Waraseoni in Civil Original Suit No.33 -A/04, decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1 -plaintiff for declaration, partition and separate possession with respect of the disputed agricultural land, has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the plaintiff -respondent No.1 herein filed the aforesaid suit against the appellant and other respondents contending that her grandfather Raghunath had two sons, namely, Bhauraj and Bhoomraj (appellant herein). Bhauraj died before 12 years. Bhauraj had solemnized marriage with Sagun Bai and out of such wedlock she was born. When she was two years of the age, her mother Sagun Bai, due to mental retarded condition of Bhauraj, leaving her with him, left the matrimonial home and got remarried with one Laxman Gadewal. Bhauraj and Bhoomraj were residing jointly with the parents and their business and agricultural land was also joint. As such, no partition took place between them. As per further averments of the plaint, her grandfather Raghunath had 2.400 hectares while her grandmother Lalta Bai had 1.156 hectares of agricultural land recorded in their name in village Kherlanji. Besides this, they also had two houses with "Hatabadi", out of which, one house consisting two rooms was situated on Abadi land while the other one was situated in village Khari. On demise of said Raghunath, his 2.400 hectares of land, was inherited by Bhauraj along with Lalta Bai and Bhoomraj jointly. Thereafter, on demise of her father Bhauraj, she inherited his share. On demise of Lalta Bai, her 1.156 hectares of land, was inherited jointly by the appellant and the plaintiff -respondent No.1. In such premises they being joint owners of the aforesaid property are having the entitlement of equal share in it. As per further averments of the plaint, at the time of death of her grandfather Raghunath and grandmother Lalta Bai, she being minor, was residing with the appellant and, therefore, the property of her share, was also looked after by the appellant. Although, in the year 1996, after getting married she went to matrimonial home to village Panjara but the property of her share was looked after by the appellant on her behalf. Subsequent to it, on the land bearing S.No.372/13,372/14 and 372/15 admeasuring 0.530 hectares, the appellant got mutated his own name along with the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue records while, the remaining land was got mutated by the appellant exclusively in his name in the Record of Rights. In the year 1997, she was told by the appellant that some debts, taken at the time of her marriage, are to be paid and as soon as such debts are paid, he will handover her share of such property by carrying out the partition. Accordingly, the appellant was cultivating the land on sharing basis. Subsequently, the appellant declined to give her share and started quarreling with her, on which, a complaint was made to the police. The appellant had claimed himself to be the exclusive owner of the aforesaid property on the basis of some forged and fabricated Will, as alleged, executed by said Raghunath in his favour. Apart from the aforesaid property some averments regarding other movables and ornaments are also made. With these averments, the suit for declaration and partition for half of the share of the aforesaid property with separate possession, was filed.

(3.) AFTER framing the issues and recording the evidence, the trial Court had decreed the suit in part for half of the share in the available property except the land which had already been sold earlier. On challenging such judgment and decree of the trial Court by the appellant, the appellate Court, on consideration, by dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, on which, the appellant has come forward to this Court with this appeal.