KALYANI Vs. GHISI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dt. 05.04.1999, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Karauli affirming the judgment and decree dt. 24.07.1997, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Karauli, whereby the respondent -plaintiff's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) suit for seeking declaration of sale -deed dt. 28.08.1986 as null and void and for permanent injunction was partly decreed. Heard the counsel for the defendant -appellant (hereinafter 'the defendant') and perused the judgments of the Courts below.

(2.) I find no substance in the submission of the counsel for the defendant that where the suit was filed only for declaring the sale -deed as null and void to the extent of the plaintiffs share, the Courts below had no jurisdiction whatsoever to grant a decree of partition in her favour as well. In my considered view, granting a decree of partition was a relief consequential to the setting aside the sale -deed executed by Mithi and Durga Lal (respectively mother and brother of the plaintiff) in favour of the defendant to the extent of the share of the plaintiff. This relief automatically flowed from holding the sale -deed to be bad to the extent of the plaintiff's share. No other substantial question of law has even been attempted to be made out by the defendant's counsel in the course of argument. In fact from the facts on record, none is made out. Consequently, this second appeal is without force and the same is thus dismissed however leaving the parties to bear their own costs.