ORDER :- In this appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendants have called in question the sustainability and defensibility of the judgment and decree dated12-3-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurai in Civil Suit No. 16-A/1988.

2. The respondents as plaintiffs initiated the aforesaid civil action for declaration of the sale deed executed on 8-2-1988 by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of house No. 35 situated at Ward No. 35, village Malthone as null and void and further for partition of the disputed house. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff No.1 is the widow of the deceased Chinte and plaintiff No. 10 is the daughter begotten from the first wife of Chinte. First wife had deserted Chinte and married other person which prompted Chinte to enter into second marriage. In the said wedlock, as pleaded, the plaintiff No.2 and the defendant No. 1 were born. The second wife died many years ago and Chinte married plaintiff No.1, Jagrani. In the said wedlock plaintiffs 3 to 9 were born.

3. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the suit house was purchased by late Chinte by registered sale deed dated 18-12-1948 and he was in possession of the house till his death after which all the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 acquired 1/11th share in the said house. No partition had taken place in respect of the said house and other ancestral properties of Chinte who expired nine years back. Despite that the defendant No. 1 had sold the house to defendant No. 2 by sale deed dated 8-2-1988 and hence, the plaintiffs had instituted the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The defendants filed a joint written statement controverting the assertions made in the plaint and pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 is not the wife of late Chinte. Plaintiff No.1 had initially married on Chandua but she had illicit relationship with late Chinte. It is put forth that Chinte had partitioned his property amongst his sons in the year 1971 and the disputed house was allotted to the defendant No.1. It is contended in the written statement filed by the defendants that the suit house is the self acquired property of Chinte and the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the same. It was further stand of the defendant that Chinte had given the old house to the plaintiffs. Chinte had got the names of Bhairon and Kusum recorded in the village Panchayat Malthone. The suit house was given by defendant No.1 on rent of Rs. 50/- per month to Keshar Bai and Santosh Kumar who were in the possession of the same and Santosh had installed a flour mill in the said house and he used to reside in the said house. The said suit house was sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 Keshar Bai who is in possession of the same in the capacity as owner of the house. It was further put forth that Chinte had married twice as the first wife had deserted him. Chinte contracted second marriage with Heera Bai and out of the said wedlock plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1 were born. It is pleaded that plaintiff No.1 is not the legally married wife of deceased Chinte and plaintiffs 3 to 9 are born because of illicit relationship between Chinte and respondent No.1. The defendants also pleaded that defendant No.2 has perfected his title by adverse possession as he is in possession of the same as title holder.

5. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings framed seven issues, namely , whether the plaintiff No.1 is legally married wife of deceased Chinte; whether the disputed house was self acquired property of Chinte; whether Chinte had partitioned his properties between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the year 1971; whether the disputed house was allotted to defendant No.1 and he is in possession of the same since then; whether the share in the disputed house of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is to the extent of 1/11 and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the disputed house par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document