Honble YADAV, J. — This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC by defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1980 passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1977 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.10.1977 passed by the learned Civil Judge,Bhilwara in Original Civil Suit No. 34 of 1971- Bhilwara & another v/s Khema & Others.

(2). It is pertinent to mention that the learned District Judge, Bhilwara by his impugned judgment and decree had allowed the cross objections filed by plaintiff-respondent Bhagwana and his mother Nani under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC modifying the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge decreeing the restoration of the possession by ejecting the defendant-appellants No. 1 to 3 and defendant-respondent No.4.

(3). Civil Suit was filed by Shri Bhagwana and his mother Smt. Nani plaintiff-respondents No.l arid 2 on the ground inter-alia that the land in dispute is an ancestral property and they are members of the joint Hindu family and they are governed by Mitakshara Scheol of Hindu Law. According to the plaint allegation, plaintiff No;l Bhagwana is a. minor coparcener while his mother plaintiff No. 2 Nani had charge over the disputed land being legally wedded wife of defendant Uda. It is also alleged in the plaint that the disputed agricultural land is ancestral acquisition in which Bhagwana plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is a coparcener and the defendant Uda had no right,title and interest to execute three sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 4. It is also alleged that the registered sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 3 Uda on 2.4.68 in favour of Khema defendant-appellant No.l abour Plot No. 1143 area 6 bigha 13 biswas for a consideration of Rs. 700/- the second registered sale deed executed by defendant Uda on 15.5.68 in favour of Gokul defendant-respondent No. 4 about Plot No. 101 area 1 Bigha 2 Biswas for a consideration of Rs.500/-and third registered sale deed executed dated 15.5.68 by Shri Uda in favour of Shola and Kana defendant-appellants No.2 and 3 about Plot No.102 & 106 area 2 Bigha 16 Biswas with a well for consideration of Rs.2,500/-. It is further alleged that aforesaid three registered sale deeds have been executed by Uda without their permission and without any legal necessity. It is also alleged that the aforesaid sale deeds had been executed by defendant Uda without consideration which has necessitated to file present suit for cancellation of three sale deeds and also for restoration of possession.

(4). After service on defendants No. 1 to 4 transferees as well as defendant No. 5 Uda, transferor filed a joint written statement denying the plaint allegations. In their written statements it is asserted inter-alia that the land in dispute is self acquired agricultural land of Uda. It is also asserted that although Smt. Nani plaintiff No. 2 is legally wedded wife of Uda but lateron she became a lady of easy virtue and started to live in adultery with other persons and Bhagwana is born with the union of others and as such Bhagwana is not the son of Uda and Nani ceased to be legally wedded wife of Uda and as such she is not entitled to claim maintenance from Uda.

(5). On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by learned Civil Judge and both the parties were allowed to adduce their oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

(6). Learned Civil Judge on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties held that the disputed agricultural land is ancestral acquisition. In respect of Plot No. 101 it is held that it was acquired by Uda by registered sale deed on 28.5.66 from Mohanlal but according to learned Civil Judge Plot No. 101 which was acquired by Uda was acquired by him with the earning of other agricultural ancestral land. Since the aforesaid Plot No.101 was acquired by him with the earning of ancestral agricultural land having common nucleus, therefore, Plo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document