IMPORTANT POINT
Hindu Succession – After coming into force of Hindu Succession Act 1956, Mulla’s Hindu Law is no more applicable in matter of succession.

JUDGMENT

By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed against the judgment and decree of concurrence dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned District Judge- II, Koderma in Title Appeal no. 12 of 2008 by which, learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed/upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif, Koderma dated 23.02.2008 in the Title Suit no. 14 of 1996, whereby and where under learned Munsif, Koderma dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest with costs against the defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit land was recorded in the name of the Gopal Gope, who died leaving behind four sons namely Bhola Gope, Horil Gope, Nago Gope and Rupan Gope- who were members of a joint Hindu family and were in joint possession over the land of Khata no. 21. Horil Gope died in jointness of family leaving behind his son Bhikhari Gope. The joint family acquired 10.18 Acres of land of Khata no. 1 and 27.93 Acres of land in Khata No. 117 of village – Tilokari vide registered Raiyati Domani patta No. 5393 dated 13.09.1948 from the landlord and the same was confirmed vide three sale deeds bearing nos. 3764, 3766 and 3767 dated 04.07.1950. The members of the joint family were in possession over the land and using the usufructs of the same. Thereafter, the land of khata no. 1 and 117 was partitioned in between the joint family of Bhola Gope and Bihari Pandey and others and the plaintiffs got 10.54 Acres share in Khata no. 1 and 90 decimals share in Khata no. 117, accordingly, they remained in joint possession of land. Bhola Gope died leaving behind his two sons- Basudeo Gope and Madan Gope. Plaintiff nos. 1 and 3 have married daughters, Kano Devi, Dulo Devi and Yasoda Devi, who have no concern with the properties of their father. The son of Bhola Gope namely Lekho Gope died in the lifetime of Bhola Gope leaving behind his widow Mostt. Budhani. Bhikhari Gope, the son of Horil Gope also died leaving behind his son Prabhu Gope, who is the plaintiff no. 3. The third son of Gopal Gope, namely Nago Gope died issueless around the year 1950 in jointness of family leaving behind his widow, Mostt. Ugani but Mostt. Ugani after the death of her husband, never came to her sasural and she had no concern with her sasural and the landed property of her husband. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the fourth son of Gopal Gope namely Rupan Gope died issueless around the year 1952 leaving behind his widow Mostt. Jhamani, who also left her matrimonial home and had no concern with the land of her husband. It is further interalia pleaded by the plaintiffs that there is complete ouster of Mostt. Ugani, the widow from the land and property of her husband and his family and the daughters of Lekho Gope relinquished their all interest in respect of their property, thus, the land of Khata no. 21, 1 and 117 came in exclusive possession of surviving heirs of Gopal Gope. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the land of Khata no. 21, 1 and 117 was never partitioned amongst the members of the joint family by metes and bounds. The plaintiff further pleaded that Mostt. Ugani, wife of Nago Gope, though never came in possession of the suit land; in collusion with defendant no. 3- Satya Naraian Yadav, without the knowledge of plaintiff executed and registered gift deed no. 3492 dated 10.07.1995 in favour of Chameli Devi-the defendant no. 1, without mentioning the boundary of the land. Mostt. Chameli, wife of Satya Narain Yadav is an outsider and not related to the family of Most. Ugani. The defendant no. 1-Chameli Devi never came in possession of the gifted land and the said gift deed was never acted upon. The plaintiffs filed the suit with prayer for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land described in schedule B and also that the suit is part of joint lands