- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 12.05.2009 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2003 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Chittorgarh has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : a suit was filed by the plaintiff -appellant seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 1979 and for possession of the suit property; it was, inter alia, claimed in the plaint that plaintiff's great grand -father was Moolchand, whose son, his grand -father was Ram Narayan, who had three sons ­ Arjun, Khyali Lal and Punam Chand; Khyali Lal had two sons ­ Mahendra Kumar, the plaintiff and Narendra Kumar ­ defendant No.3 and defendant No.2 Khyali Lal is his father; it was claimed that the suit property ­ shop was ancestral property as on account of death of Moolchand, the same was succeeded by Ram Narayan; on death of Ram Narayan, the property came to defendant No.2 Khyali Lal, which was sold by him on 03.1979 for a sum of Rs.15,000/ -; the defendant No.2 father did not seek his consent or that of his mother and brother; the defendant was minor then and he became major on 29.08.1994 and gave notice to defendant No.1, to which, no reply was given and, therefore, the suit was filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed and possession. 3. A written statement was filed and the existence of joint Hindu family was denied; it was stated that after death of Ram Narayan, the joint family disintegrated and defendant No.2 became owner of the suit property by partition and as the shop was owned by defendant No.2, for his requirements, the same was sold; ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The father and the brother remained ex parte.
(3.) THE trial court framed six issues and after evidence was led by the parties and after hearing the parties, it came to the conclusion that the suit was filed within limitation, the plaintiff had no right in the suit property as the property was partitioned by Ram Narayan in his life time and the same fell in the share of defendant No.2 and was, therefore, a self acquired property. Even if, Ram Narayan had died intestate, the property would have devolved on defendant No.2 Khyali Lal only and the plaintiff being grand -son has no right in the suit property as in Class I heirs the grand -son is not included. Based on the said finding, the other issues were also decided in favour of the defendants and the suit was dismissed.;