JANARDAN DAS Vs. DURGADEVI THAKURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing judgment in a suit for perpetual injunction.

(2.) Plaintiff's case was that the suit plots originally belonged to Govinda Das. Govinda died leaving behind his two sons, Raghu and Madhu. The C.S. record of right stands in the name of Raghu and Madhu. Plaintiff is the son of Raghu. Madhu's wife had predeceased him. Madhu died leaving behind his son Anadi. Anadi died leaving behind his widow Abhamani. There was no partition of the properties. Plot nos.798 and 801 have been recorded as Barihar Mahasul. In C.S. R.O.R. plot no.778 has been recorded as Baunsabari and plot nos.789 and 794 have been recorded as Gharbari. All the plots are integral part of the plaintiff's homestead. They are at a little distance from the residential house intervened by small patches of land. The lands are homestead lands and indispensable for the convenient use and occupation of the undivided dwelling house of the plaintiff and his co-sharer. Taking advantage of illiteracy of Abhamani, the defendants managed to execute the registered sale deeds in their favour in respect of her share in the property. They are the strangers to the family. When they attempted to take possession of the lands, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendants no. 7, 11, 15 and 16 filed joint written statement pleading inter alia that the suit plots had been partitioned by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and Madhu in the year 1942. After the death of Madhu, his son Anadi possessed the suit plots. After death of Anadi, his wife Abhamani became the owner in possession of the said lands. To press her legal necessity, she sold the same to them by means of different sale deeds and delivered possession. They are in possession of the properties. The suit plots are not homestead in character. They are not necessary for use and occupation of the dwelling house of the plaintiff standing on his homestead appertaining to plot no.737. The other defendants were set ex parte.