MOSSAMMAT SONEKALI KUER Vs. BAHURIA AKASHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Apppeal by the defendants except No. 11 arisen out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits in respect of schedule 2 property, in the alternative, a decree for partition in respect of Schedule 1 property. The suit was instituted by the transferee from defendant No. 11.

(2.) One Jagdayal who died in the year 1952 had five daughters and one son Lakhandeo. Lakhandeo had predeceased him. His widow is Sheomati, defendant No. 11. By a registered sale deed dated the 20th of May, 1959 she transferred Schedule 2 lands to the plaintiff-respondent. Jagdayal's widow Sonekali is defendant No. l to the suit and she has also sold portions of the property in dispute to defendants Nos. 7 to 10. The four daughters of Jagdayal who are alive are defendants 2 to 5. Balkesh son of one of the deceased daughters of Jagdayal is defendant No. 6. Defendants 12 to 15 are husbands of defendants 2 to 5. One Ramlagan has been made defendant No. 16, to the suit. It is not quite apparent from the plaint why he was made a party to the litigation; perhaps he was a party in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff-respondent is that Lakhandeo died in the year 1950 in jiointness with his father Jagdeyal. After Jagdayal's death there was a partition between Sonelal and Sheomati at which the latter got schedule 2 lands which were transferred subsequently to the plaintiff-respondent. After the execution of the sale deed in her favour by Sheomati she came in possession of those lands but subsequently she was dispossessed when an order in favour of the defendants was wrongly passed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, She however averred that in csse the court was of the opinion that there was no partition between Sonekali and Sheomati a decree for partition may be passed.