JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 passed by the District Judge Umariya in Regular Civil Appeal No. 12A/2013 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-

II, Umariya, District Umariya in Regular Civil Suit No.50-A/2011.

2. The appellants are the defendants.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of her title as well as for declaration of mutation order dated 07.07.1993 and 13.08.2010 as null and void as well as for permanent injunction.

4. The disputed land is Khasra No. 164/1, 177/1, 279, 283, 284, 290/1, 291/1, 363, 384, 440, 575/1, 645, 646, 438, 439 total area 21.26 acres, situated in Village Baroda, New Chandiya, Tehsil Bandhavgarh, District Shahdol. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has ½ share in the property in dispute.

5. According to the plaintiff the family tree is as under:-

pe: cSxk >qjgh ckbZ iqfu;k ckbZ QwyckbZ ¼oknh½ uksgjh ckbZ ¼izfroknh dz-2½ 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the family tree of defendant No.1 is as under:-

lq[kqok cSxk iqfu;k ckbZ ccyw cSxk 7. It is the case of the plaintiff that Chamru Baiga was married to Jhurhi Bai (mother of the plaintiff) and the plaintiff was born out of the wedlock. During the life time of her parents, the plaintiff got married to Ganpat Baiga, resident of Village Urdani and, therefore, the plaintiff shifted to her matrimonial house but she was regularly visiting her parental home because her father had no son. Even otherwise, the Village Baroda and Village Urdani are situated quite nearer to each other, accordingly, it was claimed that the plaintiff was also looking after her parents. The last rights of her father and mother were performed by the plaintiff. After the death of her mother Jhurhi Bai, her father Chamru kept Puniya Bai, who is the mother of the defendant No.

1. However, Puniya Bai was not given the status of wife but she was a keep of Chamru. Puniya Bai was earlier married to late Sukhwa Baiga resident of Barmani and out of the wedlock of Sukhwa Baiga and Puniya Bai, the defendant No. 1 was born. After the death of Sukhwa Baiga, the mother of defendant No. 1 had become widow and since the father of the plaintiff had also lost his wife, therefore, he brought the defendant No. 1 along with Puniya Bai and thus, it was claimed that defendant No. 1 Bablu Baiga is not the biological son of Chamru. It was claimed that out of the relationship of Chamru and Puniya Bai, the defendant No. 2 namely Nohari Bai was born and thus it was claimed that Nohari Bai is the step sister of the plaintiff. Chamru Baiga died in the year 1985-86 and after his death the names of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were recorded in the revenue records and the plaintiff had no objection to the mutation of the name of defendant No. 2. It was also the claim of the plaintiff that after the death of father Chamru, she and defendant No. 2 are in possession of 1/2 of the land. It was further submitted that the defendant No. 1 instead of mentioning the name of his biological father namely Sukhwa Baiga, started mentioning the name of his father as Chamru Baiga (father of the plaintiff) and started claiming 1/3rd share in the property. He in a clandestine manner obtained the order dated 07.07.1993 and got his name mutated in respect of 1/3rd share in the property whereas, the Revenue Inspector neither had any jurisdiction to mutate nor had jurisdiction to partition the property. The plaintiff came to know about the misdeed on 25.11.2009, when she went to obtain Kishan Credit Card. Thereafter, she came back to village and enquired. Then she found that the defendant No. 1 has got his name mutated by claiming 1/3rd share in the property. The order of partition and mutation was challenged, however, the appeal was d