KARELAL Vs. GYANBAI WIDOW OF KESHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment shall dispose of both the Second Appeal Nos. 436/2002 and 434/2002.

(2.) These appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/2002 and Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2002, by which the appeal filed by appellants Karelal and others was dismissed by the Appellate Court, whereas the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 Gyanbai was allowed by the Appellate Court.

(3.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeals, in short, are that the respondents namely Gyanbai, Rekhabai, Gayatribai and Rajbai filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that joint Hindu Family Properly of the plaintiffs and the defendants is situated in village Pawai Tahsil Basoda District Vidisha, which includes Khasra Nos. 46, 70, 100, 101, 123, 152, 213, 215, 242, 256, 257, 258, 277, 278, 279, 286, 306, 333, 335, 336, 338, 339, 340, 342, 349, 343, 457, ad-measuring area 22.616 hectares, in which the defendant No. 1 Narayan Singh and defendant No. 2 Karelal have equal share. It was further pleaded that on 18.06.1997, the plaintiffs obtained the copy of revenue records from the Patwari, according to which Khasra No. 46 area 1.118 hectare, Khasra No. 70 area 2.749 hectare, Khasra No. 100 area 0.818 hectare, Khasra No. 101 area 0.376 hectare, Khasra No. 123 area 2.174 hectare, Khasra No. 257 area 0.241 hectare, Khasra No. 258 area 0.303 hectare, Khasra No. 286 area 0.251 hectare, Khasra No. 284 area 0.052 hectare and Khasra No. 755/1 area 1.667 hectare, total area 10.749 hectare is recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 Karelal only and this land is the property in dispute. The above-mentioned land shall be referred as "disputed property". It was further pleaded that Karelal had five sons and the eldest son was Kesari Singh, who expired about 20 years back. The plaintiff No. 1 Gyanbai is the widow of Kesari Singh, whereas the plaintiffs No. 2, 3 and 4 are the daughters of Kesari Singh. It is alleged that the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 2 to 6 have equal share in the disputed property which is recorded in the name of Karelal. It was alleged that the plaintiffs have â ..™th share in the property, whereas the remaining defendants except Narayan Singh have â ..™th share. The property has never been partitioned and still it is in the joint possession of the parties and the plaintiffs as well as defendants No. 2 to 6 are earning livelihood from the said property. The right and title of the plaintiffs was never denied by the defendant No. 2 Karelal but now as their relations have become strained, therefore, except defendant No. 1 - Narayan Singh, all other defendants have started denying the title of the plaintiffs and they are out and out to dispossess the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit is being filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is submitted that since the entire land was initially recorded in the name of Sardar Singh and after his death, names of Narayan Singh and Karelal were mutated and that's why Narayan has been made a party to the suit, however, the plaintiffs do not seek any relief against the defendant No. 1 Narayan Singh. Accordingly, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed seeking declaration that out of the property in dispute, the plaintiffs as well as defendants No. 2 to 6 have equal share. Further relief was sought that the defendants No. 2 to 6 be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their share in the property.