GOVIND PRASAD PATEL Vs. JAGMOHAN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2017 passed by 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 25-A/2014 whereby suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration, title and injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants/plaintiffs are heirs of late Premlal and respondent nos. 1 to 4 are heirs of late Phoolchand, who is brother of Premlal and the suit property is part of ancestral property and the ancestral property was partitioned among Premlal and Phoolchand and another brother Bejnath and the suit property came in the share of Premlal after the partition. After death of Premlal, applicants/plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit property. Defendant nos. 1 to 4/respondent nos. 1 to 4 has sold out maximum parts of property of their share and also inclined to sell out the property of appellants/plaintiffs, therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of the title and injunction. After filing of the suit the respondent nos. 1 to 4, sold out some part of suit property in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7 by executing registered sale deed.

(3.) On behalf of respondents nos. 1 to 4/defendant nos. 1 to 4, in the written statement it is stated that no partition of ancestral property has taken place and also stated that the ancestral property belong to late Tulsiram. Tulsiram had four sons, namely, Premlal, Phoolchand, Bejnath and Balram. Tulsiram also had four daughters, namely, Lalli Bai, Shanti Bai, Komda Bai and Gora Bai. Balram was unmarried and Bejnath was ousted from the property and both have also died and further stated that the daughter of Phoolchand, namely, Savitri Bai, Uma Bai and Bejnath have also received their share, in other words they are also claiming that only Premlal and Phoolchand were entitled to the property left by Tulsidas. Further stated that the appellants/plaintiffs have also sold out several ancestral property and the description of the sale deed has been given and the suit property are in possession of the respondents/defendants and they are trying to dispossess them forcefully. In this regard, another civil suit has been filed against the appellants/plaintiffs which is pending in the court of Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur bearing Civil Suit No. 88-A/2010 and the present suit has been filed just to harass respondents/defendants, hence suit be dismissed. On behalf of respondent no. 7/defendant no. 7, written statement has also been filed in which it is stated that the respondent nos. 1 to 4/defendant nos. 1 to 4 has rightly sold out the property and the respondent no. 7/defendant no. 7 has purchased it bonafidely after paying consideration, hence no relief can be granted against her.