A daughter has equal rights in coparcenary property as a son, and ancestral property remains ancestral unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2023 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) in RCA No.02/2021 as well as judgment and decree dated 12.03.2021 passed by Civil Judge Class -I, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) in RCS No.400060-A/2016.

2. Appellant is the defendant who has lost his case from both the courts below. Plaintiff is the sister of defendants No.2 and 3 and was the daughter of defendant No.1 who died during pendency of the suit. Other defendants are the legal representatives of Bholaram Jatav and Prakash who were brothers of plaintiff.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Survey No.393, 405, 406, 407, 449, 453, 456, 464, 496, 503, 516, 530, 540, 541, 552, 564, 572, 598, 601, 614, 1223 and 459/1462 situated in Mouja Chamhedi, Pargana Gohad, District Bhind. It is the case of plaintiff that the aforesaid land was the coparcenary property and therefore, plaintiff was also having share from her birth. Her father Hargovind had no right to alienate the property without any legal necessity. Father of plaintiff, namely, Hargovind has expired on 05.07.2015 and except the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 10, there is no other legal representative of Hargovind. After the death of her mother/defendant No.1, plaintiff has 1/5^th share in the property whereas defendants No.2 and 3 have 1/5^th share each, defendant No.4 to 7 have 1/5^th share and defendants No.8 to 10 have 1/5^th share. It was alleged that when the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the revenue record then she came to know that from Samvat 2053 to 2057 the name of her father was recorded in the revenue records and later on by order dated 07.07.2003, defendants No.2, 3 Hakim and Prabhudayal got their names mutated in the revenue records without any information and without impleading the plaintiff as a party. Similarly, the name of Bholaram has also been mutated in the revenue records by a separate order dated 07.07.2013 passed in Case No.04/2002-03x/27 and by order dated 07.07.2013 passed in Case No.04/2002-03xA/28 the names of defendants No.8 and 9 were mutated in the revenue records. The name of father of plaintiff remained recorded in respect of 2.73 hectares of land. The aforesaid act was done by defendants No.2 and 3, Bholaram (who is the father of defendants No.4 to 6) as well as defendants No.8 and 9 with an intention to deprive the plaintiff of her share. It was further pleaded that Hargovind was aged about 90 years and was not able to understand the things. On 28.07.2015, when plaintiff and her husband were preparing an application for obtaining the death certificate as well as mutation of their names, then defendants No.2 and his sons snatched the important documents from the hands of husband of plaintiff and accordingly, complaint was made to Police Station Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.). The defendant No.3 is a simple person and is unmarried and therefore defendant No.2 had also got his name recorded jointly along with him. Thus, the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. Defendants No.1 to 10 filed their written statement. Family tree was accepted. The contents of para No.1 of the plaint in which it was specifically mentioned by plaintiff that suit property is a co-parcenary property were admitted by defendants No.1 to 10 in their written statement. However, it was claimed that Hargovind had already partitioned the land in dispute during his lifetime which was in the knowledge of plaintiff.

5. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit and held that plaintiff has 1/5^th share in the property in dispute. Since the plaintiff was found to be in joint possession with other defendants, therefore, permanent injunction was not granted.

6. Bein