SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. SMT. POOLWANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil First Appeal under sec.96 CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 07.01.2017 in Civil Suit No.371/2015 (55/2001) { Suresh Kumar and ors. v. Phoolwanti Devi and ors) , whereby the suit was rejected on ground of jurisdiction. Briefly stated, the appellants preferred a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed as well as injunction with respect to Hindu Joint Family property. It was also alleged in the plaint that the appellants and respondent No.1 were members of Joint Hindu Family of Munna Lal and during his lifetime, partition of the properties never took place. It was also alleged that Munna Lal during his lifetime purchased various properties in the name of husband of respondent No.1 Jawahar Lal as well as in the name of respondent No.1 herself, which were acquired from income of Munna Lalji. The properties so acquired by Munna Lalji were described in para 4 of the plaint.

(2.) It was also alleged in the plaint that the properties described in khasra No.7/18 were never made demarcation and these are adjacent to khasra No.7/19, which is apparent from mauka report dated 07.02.1999. It was also stated that on 20.11.1994, by means of family arrangement, the respondent No.1 had agreed that properties in khasra No.7/18 shall form part of the Joint Hindu Family properties.

(3.) It was also stated that the respondent No.1, during lifetime of her husband and after his death, never intended to support the joint family and after the death of her husband Jawahar Lalji, she separated herself from the Joint Hindu Family in the year 1995. On 29.09.1998, the respondent No.1 sold 25 bighas land situated at khasra No.7/18 for Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondents No.2 and 3, which could not have been done, for the same being forming part of the Joint Hindu Family properties. It was further stated that half portion of khasra No.7/18 belongs to Rupi Devi, mother of appellant No.1 and the remaining portion was of respondent No.1. The Sale Deed in question was never executed by proper means and the same was questioned by appellants on various grounds.