JUDGEMENT

In this second appeal, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”) have challenged the judgment and decree passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Waidhan, district Singrauli, on 2.7.2021 in Regular Civil Appeal (RCA) No.1500048/2016 dismissing the first appeal preferred by defendants and confirming the judgment and decree passed on 30.7.2016 by First Civil Judge, Class II, Singrauli, Headquarters Waidhan, in Civil Suit No.RCSA 31-A/2014. Under that judgment, the trial court allowed the civil suit filed by respondents no.1-3 (hereinafter referred to as”plaintiffs”) for the reliefs of declaring their 1/7th share individually in suit property, of declaring the registered partition-deed dated 25.9.2009 as null and void and of allowing their right to get the suit property mutated in their names according to their shares.

2. The facts admitted for decision of this second appeal are that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of Shankhlal, who died in the year 2012;

Shankhlal was the son of Chunnu Teli; an application was filed by plaintiffs, who are the daughters of Shankhlal, claiming the suit property to be their ancestral property and requesting for recording their equal share in the suit property along with defendants. Admittedly, that petition was allowed by Additional Tahsildar on 4.4.2013 in favour of plaintiffs but defendant nos.1-3 challenged that order in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Singrauli; the appeal was allowed on 16.8.2013 and the order passed by Additional Tahsildar was set aside; the appellate court held that the property be recorded in the name of defendant nos.1-3 in the light of registered partition-deed of suit property which was executed between them and their late father Shankhlal.

3. The brief facts for decision of this second appeal are that the plaintiffs filed the civil suit claiming that the registered partnership was a sham and forged document, which was executed without disclosing correct facts to the father of plaintiffs, namely Shankhlal; the plaintiffs were not aware of execution of any such document; the suit property was their coparcenary property as it belonged to their grandfather Chunnu Teli and was not the self-earned property of their father Shankhlal. In this ancestral property, each of the plaintiffs was entitled to 1/7th share and their right, title and interest in the suit property cannot be extinguished by a forged registered partition-deed. Upon getting information about the existence of this forged document, the civil suit was filed for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. Defendants no.1-4 filed the joint written statement in which they claimed that the property was the self-earned property of their father Shankhlal; it never belonged to Chunnu; as the property was of sole ownership of Shankhlal, therefore he divided this property amongst his three sons and for this, a registered partition-deed was executed during the lifetime of father Shankhlal; on the basis of this partition, the properties were recorded in the names of defendants and those mutation entries have not been quashed by any court; Shankhlal had every right to divide his own property amongst his sons; the order passed by Additional Tahsildar in favour of plaintiffs was illegal, which was duly quashed by the superior Court of Sub- Divisional Officer, Singrauli; the suit valuation and the court fees paid in the case were challenged; it was claimed that the suit was time barred; a request was made to dismiss the civil suit.

4. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, issues were framed by the trial court and the evidence of both the sides was recorded. Upon appreciation of evidence, the suit was decreed for the relief of declaration of title and holding the registered partnership as null and void. The appeal preferred by defendants no.1-4 was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

5. The grounds raised in this second appeal are that the j