JUDGEMENT

Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiffs”) against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 7/10/2016 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat in Civil Appeal No.71-A/2015 affirming the Judgment and decree dated 5/7/2010 passed by IInd Civil Judge, Class – II, Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat (MP) in Civil Suit No. 68-A/2009.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Courts have failed to appreciate the pleadings of the parties and to consider the documents and evidence on record. The courts below have failed to appreciate that there were no documentary evidence on record to the effect that the land in question was a self owned property of the Premlal because he got the said land in partition. Any Partition deed had never executed in respect of the suit land. The respondents tried to prove that consent was taken from the appellants for sale of the suit land which proved that the suit land was ancestral property and not the self acquired property.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the second appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is undisputed in this case that the suit property was originally of the ownership of Mukunda. He was the owner of the suit property. Kewal and Premlal were two sons of Mukunda but both have died. It is also not in dispute that the suit property was divided between Kewal and Premlal. The family tree of the parties is also not in dispute that thereby it is not disputed that plaintiff Sevanta Bai is daughter of Premlal and plaintiff Baijan Bai is the widow of deceased son of Premlal namely Deendayal.

7. Revenue documents on record establishes that earlier the suit property was belonged to Mukunda and a partition has taken place between Premlal and Kewal and suit property received by Premlal in his share. It is settled law that after the partition of joint family property, the receiver becomes its owner. As laid down in the case of Rohit Chauhan vs. Surendar Singh and Another reported in AIR 2013 SC 3525. The relevant paras of the citation are reproduced as under :-

“11. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submission and we find substance in the submission of Mr.

Rao.

In our opinion coparcenary property means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener would mean a person, who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common ancestor. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the Joint Hindu family and before commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, only male members of the family used to acquire by birth an interest in the coparcenary property. A

coparcener has no definite share in the coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest in it and one has to bear in mind that it enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the family. It is not static. We are further of the opinion that so long, on partition an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener. The view which we have taken finds support from a judgment of this Court in the case of M. Yogendra v. Leelamma N., (2009) 15 SCC 184, in which it has been held as follows:

“29. It is now well settled in view of several decisions of this Court that the property in the hands of a sole coparcener allotted to him in par