- (1.)This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007 passed by District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No. 54 A/2006, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2006 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Panna in Civil Suit No. 99 A/2005.
(2.)Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land situated in village Sawaiganj (Mouja Garhi Padaria) Tahsil and district Panna, bearing Araji No. 20/25 area 0.348 hectare, Araji No. 20/33 area 0.421 hectare and Araji No. 98 area 1.343 hectare (new No. 216 area 0.04 hectare, Araji No. 224 area 0.05 hectare, Araji No. 225 area 0.18 hectare, Araji No. 239 area 0.11 hectare, Araji No. 270 area 0.26 hectare and Araji No. 464 area 1.32 hectare). On the contentions that, late Bhagwatdeen S/o Chandi Yadav was the owner of property and being issueless had brought up the plaintiff from his childhood and that by Will dated 6.1.1995 bequeathed the property in favour of the plaintiff. That, Bhagwatdeen died on 9.1.1995. After his death the defendants who were the brothers of Bhagwatdeen though had received eight acres of land on partition, 30 years ago started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the basis of order passed by the Revenue Authority directing for mutation over 1/3rd of the suit property. It was also the contention that since Bhagwatdeen was the sole owner of the suit property and same having been bequeathed in favour of plaintiff he be declared the absolute owner thereof. Defendant No. 1 contradicted the plaint allegations. It was stated that plaintiff was never adopted by late Bhagwatdeen and that Will dated 6.1.1995 was fabricated. It was further contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property which was being cultivated by the defendants. It was further averred that the defendants filed an application for partition of suit property before Additional Tahsildr, Devendra Nagar who by order dated 17.6.1993 partitioned the same amongst three brothers, namely, Bhagwatdeen (since deceased) and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. That, the order dated 17.6.1993 was upheld in appeal by Sub Divisional Officer, Panna by his order dated 26.3.1994, which was further affirmed by Commissioner, Sagar by order dated 23.1.1996.
(3.)It was further contended during lifetime of Bhagwatdeen the defendants have been in possession and cultivating 1/3rd of the property in question and after his death they are in possession of the suit property. The defendants have also denied the contentions that they received eight acres of land in partition. It was urged that the land bearing Araji No. 20/48, 20/54 was not ancestral property but was a government land on lease. The defendant also denied of taking loan from District Cooperative Development Bank. It was further contented that on the basis of fabricated Will dated 6.1.1995 plaintiff filed an application before Additional Tahsildar who by order dated 18.5.1995 directed for mutation. However, the said order has since been set aside in appeal by Tahsildar by order dated 25.3.1996. It was further contended that since Bhagwatdeen and defendants No. 1 and 2 were real brothers and Bhagwatdeen having died issueless the suit property was reverted to the defendants. Respective parties led their evidence. The Trial Court on the basis of respective pleadings framed the following issues. JUDGEMENT_3_LAWS(MPH)1_2015.jpg