PRABHUDAS AND ORS. Vs. KALIBAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 01.11.2013 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Jaora and judgement dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jawar, District Neemuch whereby Civil Suit and first appeal both have been dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the land bearing survey No.43/2 area 0.750 hectare of Gram Medhpura Chouhan, Tehsil Singoli (hereinafter referred as suit land). According to the plaintiffs, late Narsingh Das being a grand father was owner of land area 4.234 hectare. The details of the land are mentioned in para 2. After the death of Narsingh Das his three son namely Bhawardas, Pyardas and Kishandas became the joint owner by way of succession. The partition took place between three brothers and they started cultivation. After the death of Bhawardas the present plaintiffs became the owner and they have partitioned the land between them. According to the plaintiffs, Pyardas had two daughters namely Kali Bai and Prem Bai. The plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land and they are cultivating the same. It is further pleaded that father of the plaintiffs - Bhawardas had 1/3rd right over total land 4.234 hectare. Pyardas during his lifetime sold his share to the plaintiffs vide unregistered sale deed dated 28.05.1977 in Rs.3,000/- and the possession was handed over but due to some reasons sale deed could not be executed. Pyardas left the village 10 years ago from his death and his two daughters had no possession over the suit land.

(3.) It is further pleaded that after the death of Pyardas the defendant No.1 Kali Bai got mutated her name but she was never in possession. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 took an undue advantage of mutation of her name executed sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and sold the land Survey No.43/2 area 0.75 hectare and 43/3 area 0.02 hectare (1/3rd). According to the plaintiffs, no sale consideration was passed on to the defendant No.1 and the possession was not handed over to defendant Nos.2 and 3, therefore, the sale deed is void and not binding on the plaintiffs and now the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcefully, hence, the cause of action arose for filing the suit.