- (1.)HEARD on admission.
(2.)THIS is plaintiff's second appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 19.09.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.
(3.)-A/2002 by Second Additional District Judge, Astha, District Sehore affirming judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 passed in Civil Suit No. 15 -A/1990 by Civil Judge Class -I, Astha. Bhawna had owned 23.26 acre of land in village Barkehda, Astha. He married twice. From the first marriage, born the plaintiff. After death of his first wife, he married Siddhi Bai from whom were born defendant No.1 and 2.
That, Bhawna died in the year 1947, whereafter, as per plaintiff, the suit property was divided between the plaintiff and Siddhi Bai. However, subsequently, the defendants got the name recorded over 1/3rd share in the property in the revenue record which led the plaintiff file a suit for declaration of title and for possession over the suit property - 0.97 acre out of survey No.296, 0.55 acre out of survey No.307, 1.31 acre out of survey No.310 and 316/1, 0.04 acre out of survey No.311, 0.29 acre out of survey No.312, 0.48 acre out of survey No.313, 1.00 acre out of survey No.314, 315/1, 2.50 acre out of survey No.352/1, 0.56 acre out of survey No.352/3, 1.13 acre out of survey No.362,363/1, 2.73 acre out of survey No.375/1, 376 and 0.12 acre out of survey No.377/2.
3. Defendants filed counter claim countering the claim of the plaintiff of being owner of 1/2 share over the suit property and claim for partition over 1/3 rd each of the share in the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit on 29.04.2002 holding plaintiff entitled for 1/2 of the share in the suit property on a finding : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]...
Defendants being aggrieved preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court on the same set of facts reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court holding that after death of Bhawna, his widow Siddhi Bai and three children including the plaintiff became joint owner of the suit property and Siddhi Bai was not exclusive owner as could have transferred the share in favour of plaintiff when the defendant No.1 and 2 were minor. First Appellate Court observed : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]...