ORDER :

1. The present MCC has been registered on the ground that the name of respondent No. 3 could not be reflected in the array of the parties in the CAV judgment delivered on 29.04.2022 in Second Appeal No. 278/2014.

2. Perusal of the records shows that the aforesaid second appeal was reserved on 03.03.2022 and on the same day, later on, this Court has allowed the application (I.A. No. 02/2021) for impleadment of respondent No. 3 namely: Bhupendra Bhave S/o Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Bhave, on a separate order-sheet. The necessary amendments were incorporated on the same day in the original records of Second Appeal, however, inadvertently, the name of respondent No. 3 could not be reflected in the CAV judgment delivered on 29.04.2022.

3. The above error appears to be a clerical mistake.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also submit that this MCC may be allowed and the respondent No. 3 may be ordered to be added in the CAV judgment.

5. In view of the above, it is ordered that in the judgment dated 29.04.2022 passed in Second Appeal No. 278/2014, in the array of the parties, after the respondent No. 2, it be read as follows:

“3. Bhupendra Bhave S/o Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Bhave aged about 25 years R/o Village Siladehi, Tahsil Bamhanidih, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh.”

6. Registry-in-charge (CPC) is directed to delete the order passed by this Court on 29.04.2022 in SA No. 278/2014 which was earlier uploaded. Thereafter, the corrected order adding the name of respondent No. 3 be uploaded along-with the instant MCC.

7. With this observation and direction the instant MCC stands disposed of.

Second Appeal No. 278 of 2014

1. This is plaintiff/appellant's Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Janjgir Chamnpa in Civil Appeal No. 36-A/2013 arising out of judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Champa District Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No. 48-A/2008, whereby suit of appellant for declaration of title was dismissed by the Courts below.

2. This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff was admitted for final hearing on 20.01.2022 by formulating the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the learned trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff ignoring the well settled legal position that the second wife cannot inherent ancestral property of her husband ignoring the provisions of Hindu Succession Act?”

3. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 48-A/2008 before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title contending that the property described in scheduled-A of the plaint, measuring 5 acres situated at village Karnoud, PH-17, Tahsil Champa and property described in scheduled-B, measuring 1.1 acres situated at village Nakkidih, PH-17, Tahsil Champa as ancestral property. Late Chandulal Pandey was the resident of village Karnoud, Tahsil Champa. As per family tree, Chandulal Pandey had two sons namely Heeralal and Bharatlal. The plaintiff is the son of Bharatlal. Heeralal had died as issueless on 26.10.2000 and after his death, Panchas of village has ordered that with the consent of Kamla Bai, Heeralal has adopted plaintiff as his son through adoption deed dated 16.11.2000, he inherited the property left by Heeralal Pandy. It is contended that the plaintiff has taken care of Heeralal during his lifetime and after his death the plaintiff has performed his last rituals. It has also been mentioned in the adoption deed that the plaintiff will get 1-1 acres of land of village Karnoud and village Naktidih, therefore, the plaintiff looked after Heeralal and Kamla Bai during their lifetime. It is contended before death of Kamla Bai, Chameli Bai and Kamla Bai will utilize the remaining part of the lands for their liv