GABDAYA Vs. BHAGERATHI BAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant No. 4 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.8.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Sausar, District Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.15-A/ 2015, which arose out of the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2013 passed by Civil Judge Calss-I, Pandurna, District Chhindwara in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2009, whereby the lower appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by appellant/defendant No. 4 Gabdaya and declared the sale-deed dated 28.9.2007 executed by Santosh (since died, represented through respondent No. 2) in favour of Satish (respondent No. 5) and sale-deed dated 21.5.2009 executed by Satish in favour of appellant/defendant No. 4 Gabdaya as null and void so far as it relates to half portion of the disputed land situated at Village Temni, Khasra No. 248 Rakba 2.424 hectare belonging to Bhagerathi Bai (respondent No. 1).

(2.) As per the plaint filed by Bhagerathi Bai (respondent No. 1), suit property is situated at village Temni Khasra No. 248, 249/1 total area about 2.458 hectare. Earlier in the revenue records both the lands were recorded in the name of Govinda, father of plaintiff Bhagerathi Bai and Santosh defendant No. 1. During pendency of the litigation, Santosh died, therefore, he is represented through his legal representatives. Bhagerathi Bai claimed declaration of ownership of half share of the disputed land, its partition and for taking possession and pleaded that she had half share in the disputed land, which is a joint Hindu family property but without her knowledge, property was illegally sold to defendant No. 2 Satish (respondent No. 5) on 28.9.2007 and on 21.5.2009 Satish sold it to the appellant/defendant No. 4. She also claimed permanent injunction against the defendants.

(3.) Defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 Santosh (since died, represented through legal representatives) admitted his relationship with the plaintiff that they are real brother and sister. He pleaded that in the year 1995, the entire disputed land has been mutated in his name with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff because their father Govinda has died. He also claimed that he is in possession of the disputed property. Their father Govinda already gave a plot and a house situated at Bhopal to the plaintiff earlier. She has relinquished her right in favour of him. Their father has died 15-16 years ago hence the suit filed by her for partition is clearly time barred and is liable to be dismissed.