JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant Civil Revision against the order dated 11-3-2022 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Civil Suit No. 27-A/15, (Manoj Kansari vs. Ramchandra Kansari and another) whereby the learned District Judge has rejected the application filed by the defendant No.6/petitioner – Devnath Kansari. under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and partition mainly contending that the original plaintiff Smt. Chandrama Devi is wife of late Kusu Sahu. Late Kusu Sahu was first married to late Badan Bai who died 55 years ago after delivering birth to defendant No.1. After death of Badan Bai, Late Kusu Sahu got married with plaintiff i.e., Smt. Chandrama Devi and from their wedlock, Krishna Mohan Sahu, Indra Mohan, Vinod, Santosh were born. It has been contended that one of his sons namely Indra Mohan died prior to 7 – 8 years and Santosh is not traceable for the last 9 – 10 years. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are wife and daughter of late Indira Mohan Kansari, as such defendants No. 1 to 5 and plaintiff are the legal representatives of late Kusu Sahu. Since they are Hindus, they are governed by Hindu law. It is stated that late Kusu Sahu in his life time, acquired Nazul Plot No. 151 area 0.16 acres situated at village Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, wherein they are residing in subsequent place which is termed suit property.

3. It has been further contended that Kusu Sahu died on 20-3- 2000, as such plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 have inherited the property as successors. It has been further contended that after death of Kusu Sahu, plaintiff/defendants No. 4 and 5 have initiated proceedings for recording their names before the Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, which is still pending. It is pleaded that after notice of application for mutation, defendant No.1 with an object to institute mutation proceedings with collusion of defendant No.6 and filed an application for recalling of the order on the basis of forged and fabricated will which is pending. On the above factual matrix of the case, it is prayed that plaintiff Chandrama Devi has right of share of 1/5 share (it means 3.2 decimal) of the property suit owned by Kusu Sahu.

4. After service of summons, defendant No.6/applicant herein appeared before the court below and filed written statement wherein it has been contended that Kusu Sahu died on 19-3-2000 the question of treating plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 as legal representatives of late Kusu Sahu does not arise. It has been further contended that deceased Kusu Sahu solemnized marriage with Badan Bai only and out of their wedlock one Ramchandra Kansari was born and he has given birth to two sons and two daughters namely Devnnath Kansari, Geeta Kansari, Tara Kansari and Sambhunath Kansri. It has also been contended that in the life time of Kusu Sahu without any pressure he has executed a will on 7-10-1997 of self acquired property, as such on the basis of will, the Nazul Officer, Ambikapur has directed for recording the name of defendant No.6 in the revenue records vide order dated 10-5- 2016. Therefore, defendant No.6 is title holder of the suit property. It has also been contended that the suit has been filed with malafide intention just to harass the defendant No.6, therefore, it is liable to be rejected. It has been further contended that the plaintiff has no relationship with Kuso Sahu and claiming herself to be wife of Kuso Sahu, therefore suit which has been filed deserves to be rejected.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed as many as six issues, thereafter, defendant No.6 had earlier filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint which has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 4-11-2017 and thereafter he has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., on 23-11-2021 cont