LAWS(PAT)-2013-4-32

DHARM RAJ YADAV Vs. KARMI KUMARI

Decided On April 24, 2013
DHARM RAJ YADAV Appellant
V/S
Karmi Kumari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants have filed this First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decreed dated 11.11.1976 passed by the learned Second Addl. Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad in partition suit No.53 of 1976 A.S.J.- II, Aurangabad / 173 of 1972 Sub Judge I, Gaya whereby the learned Court below decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for partition.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid suit claiming half share in the suit property alleging that the suit land stands recorded in the name of Deodhari Yadav, Lali Yadav having two shares and Ram Khelawan Yadav and Ram Jatan Yadav having one share. 2-3 years after the survey, there was partition between them. The suit lands were allotted to Lali Yadav who had 3 sons namely, Raghu Yadav, Jadu Yadav and Kuldeep Yadav who forms joint family governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law. Kuldeep Yadav, pre-deceased his father unmarried. After death of Lali Yadav, Raghu Yadav became the karta and on his death, Dhramraj Yadav, the eldest son of Raghu became the karta. The Schedule 'B' lands were acquired by Lali Yadav in the name of his one or other son. The Schedule 'C' land was acquired by State of Bihar in land acquisition case No.27 of 1971-72 and compensation amount of RS.7595.14/- was received by Dhramraj Yadav as karta. There has been no partition between the party, therefore, the plaintiff are entitled to half share including the compensation amount also.

(3.) According to the defendant-appellants, their case in short is that just after the death of Lali Yadav, there was amicable partition of all the joint family property about 40 yeas ago. The Schedule 'A' land was allotted to the plaintiff whereas Schedule 'B' land was allotted to the defendants in the said partition. Dhramraj Yadav was never the karta of the family of the plaintiffs. The lands acquired by the State of Bihar described in Schedule 'C' was the property allotted to the defendants, therefore, the compensation money was paid to them. The defendants also purchased 4.66 acres of land by registered sale deed which is described in Schedule 'D' of the written statement. Since, there is no unity of title and possession, the suit is liable to be dismissed, the defendants also took various legal and ornamental please.