SATYA DEVI Vs. BRAHMU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin in Civil Appeal No.31/13 of 2005/04.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff - for convenience sake) instituted a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants - for convenience sake), for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. According to the plaintiff, she became owner in possession of land measuring 14.3 bighas, i.e. the half share of the total land measuring 28.7 bighas comprised in Khasra No. Kittas 7, Khata Khatauni No.178/215 and owner in possession over 4230 shares out of the total land measuring 1 -3 bighas comprised in Khasra No.927, Khata Khatauni No.181/218, situate in village Sunhani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, Longu Ram executed a ˜will of half share of the suit land in her favour and mutation to this effect was also attested on 22.9.1995. The defendants had contested the suit. According to them, the suit land was in possession of defendant No.2, Lachhmi Devi being the widow of Longu Ram. According to them, the plaintiff in connivance with the revenue staff has got the revenue entries changed in her favour, which are wrong, illegal and not binding on them. Thus, mutation No.1721 was also wrong and illegal. According to them, no will was ever executed by Longu Ram in favour of the plaintiff. It was also averred that when defendant No.2 came to know about the wrong mutation, she filed an appeal against the order of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade dated 22.9.1995.