LAXMI BAI Vs. DROPADI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. This second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff is against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2010 by the III Additional District Judge, Damoh, affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 46-A/2006 by the I Civil Judge, Class-II, Damoh.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of certain land described in the plaint stating therein that the appellant was the daughter of one Janku, who has acquired certain property and who has died on 15.01.1992. The mother of the appellant/plaintiff has also died on 16.11.1992. The entire property, shown in the suit belonging to said Janku, was in fact inherited by the appellant. However, the respondent No. 2, who was the son of somebody else, engaged as a labourer by the said Janku, started claiming the property in suit on the strength of a Will said to be executed by Janku in his favour and, therefore, the suit was required to be filed. It was further claimed that the orders of mutation of property in the name of respondent No. 2, so issued by the Revenue Authorities, were null and void.

(3.) The claim made by the appellant was contested by the respondents inter alia stating that appellant was not the daughter of Janku. It was stated that only one son was born to Janku, namely Pooran. Since the said son was mentally retarded and since the mother of the appellant, namely Ujiyari, left Janku and started living with somebody else, only Pooran was legally entitled to receive all the property left behind by Janku. It was contended that since Pooran was mentally retarded, the property in suit was bequeathed by Janku in favour of Ganesh, who is son of Pooran. It was categorically pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was the daughter of Ujiyari but not out of the wedlock of Janku and, therefore, she was not entitled to inherit the property left behind by Janku.