Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Dukhdayibai (Dead) through L.Rs. and others
Vs.
Matibai (Dead) through L.Rs. and others
M.C.C. No. 886 of 2012, Second Appeal No. 141 of 1993
Decided On : 20-9-2012
Code of Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 152 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100, Hindu Succession Act 1956, Wajib - Ul - Urz, M.P. Land Revenue Code 1954 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, Wajib - Ul - Urz, and M.P. Land Revenue Code 1954 in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and partition of agricultural land and residential house. The trial Court decreed the suit in its entirety, but the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decreed the suit in part. The second appeal was filed challenging the decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit in relation to agricultural lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Rupabai had only a limited right of interest in the suit properties as per the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and that the defendants failed to prove the existence of legal necessity for the sale of the suit properties. The court also held that the agricultural lands did not become the self-acquired property of Rupabai.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the competence of Rupabai to transfer the suit property, the effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 on the sale executed by Rupabai, and whether Rupabai became a Marushi Kashtakar and held the suit property in her independent and absolute right.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rupabai had only a limited right of interest in the suit properties and that the defendants failed to prove the existence of legal necessity for the sale of the suit properties. The court also found that the agricultural lands did not become the self-acquired property of Rupabai.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the impugned judgment/decree of the first appellate Court was set aside and that of the trial Court restored with cost throughout.
1. Heard.
2. This is an application filed by the appellants under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, pointing out certain typographical errors with minor modifications in the order dated 27.07.2012 passed in Second Appeal No. 141 of 1993.
3. I have perused the application and also order dated 27.07.2012 and accordingly, have made minor corrections in the order along with modifications.
4. The certified copy of the corrected order be now supplied to all the parties concerned as per rules.
5. Accordingly, the application (MCC) is disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1992 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rajnandgaon (Link Court at Khairagarh) in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/1987 which in turn arose out of judgment and decree dated 16.12.1986 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No. 97-A/1984.
3. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court, which had decreed plaintiff's suit for declaration and partition in relation to suit property (agricultural land and residential house) and while partly allowing the appeal set aside that part of the judgment/decree of the trial Court which related to agricultural lands and in consequence dismissed plaintiff's suit but upheld part of the judgment/decree relating to residential house. In this way, the plaintiff's suit was held decreed in part in so far as it related to residential house whereas it was dismissed in so far as it related to agricultural lands. In this appeal, I am concerned with the decree of dismissal of plaintiff's suit in so far as it relates to agricultural lands.
4. So the question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether lower appellate Court was justified in partly modifying the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court as mentioned above.
5. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the suit, it is necessary to state the facts as pleaded by the parties and how they were dealt with by the two courts below.
6. The dispute in this appeal centres around family members, original ancestor being one Sadwa. It is between his two grand daughters and two great grand daughters on the one side as plaintiff No. 1 to 4 and another grand daughter and her husband as defendant No. 1 and 2.
7. The family tree of Sadwa would be useful to appreciate the issue.
lnok&¼e`r 1950½ ijlknh :ikckbZ ¼iq=&e`r 1940&45½ ¼iRuh&e`r 1982½ nq[khn;h ckbZ lksubZCkkbZ lksuer erhckbZ jkeyky ¼iq=h oknh ua-1½ ¼iq`=h oknh ua-2½ ¼iq=h&e`r 1960½ ¼iq=h izfroknh ua- 1½ ¼izfroknh ua- 2½ lsfBu ckbZ esfBu ckbZ ¼iq=h okfnuh ua-3½ ¼iq=h okfnuh ua-4½
8. The suit property consists of agricultural land admeasuring 18.75 acres situated at village Boldakala, district Rajnandgaon and a residential house. It belonged to Sadwa. He died somewhere in 1950. He had a son namely Parsadi who predeceased him in 1945. Parsadi had a wife Rupabai. This couple had four daughters, namely Dukhdayi (plaintiff No. 1) Sonai (plaintiff No. 2), Sonmat (mother of Sethin and Methin - Plaintiffs 3 & 4) and Matibai (defendant No. 1). Ramlal (defendant No. 2) is the husband of Matibai.
9. On the death of Sadwa, name of Rupabai, i.e. widow of his predeceased son Parsadi was recorded in the agricultural lands. Rupabai then sold the suit properties (agricultural lands and residential house) to her son-in-law Ramlal-(defendant No. 2) by executing sale deed on 23.6.55 (Ex-D/4). Rupabai died in the year 1982.
10. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 1982, out of which this appeal arises against the defendants claiming a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the suit properties to the extent of 3/4th share in it and hence their 3/4th share be partitioned between the parties (amongst the four sisters). The plaintiffs al
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
