IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 17^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 244 of 2007 MANOJ AND OTHERS Versus RAMESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for appellants. Shri Rohit Bansal – Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Yogesh Singhal – Advocate for respondent No.4.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwah – Government Advocate for respondent No.6/State.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2007 passed by 6th Additional and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhind in Civil Appeal No.53A/2006 arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2005 passed by First Civil Judge Class 1 Bhind in Civil Suit No.

3A/2003.

2. Appellants are the defendants who have lost their case from both the Courts below.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff's/respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration of title as well as for declaration of Will dated 23.09.2002 as null and void as well as for grant of share in the LIC amount and permanent injunction. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs as well as defendants no. 4, 5 and 7 are the children of Devi Dayal. Devi Dayal died on 30.11.2002. The plaintiffs and the defendants no. 4, 5 and 7 are the class 1 heirs of Devi Dayal. Family tree was also given in the plaint. Devi Dayal was the recorded owner and in possession of Aaraji No. 262. 279, 372. Total area 1.39 hectares situated in Village Chokki, Paragana and District Bhind and Aaraji No.70, area 0.36 hectares situated in Village Beesalpura. In the aforesaid land, one tree of mango and sheesham and two trees of babool are standing. The aforesaid property is the disputed property. Apart from the aforesaid property, Devi Dayal had a Life Insurance policy of ₹25,000/- and its maturity value is approximately Rs.44,000/-. It was claimed that the plaintiffs as well as the defendant no.4, 5 and 7 have equal share in the disputed property as well as in the amount of the LIC. The parties are Hindu and are governed by Mitakshara law. Devi Dayal had inherited the disputed property from his father Sukhu. Plaintiff and defendant no. 4 have share in the disputed property from their birth. Accordingly, plaintiff no.1 has one third share, Devi Dayal had 1/3 share and defendant no. 4 has one third share each. However, as per the revenue law, the name of Devi Dayal was recorded in the revenue record, being the karta of the family. Plaintiff, defendant no. 4 and Devi Dayal were jointly cultivating the disputed land and it was the sole source of their livelihood. Plaintiffs no. 2 to 3 and defendant no.7 are the daughters of Devi Dayal. After 08.12.1961, the personal laws in relation to succession have become applicable. Accordingly, plaintiffs no.2, 3, defendants no. 5 and 7 have equal share along with plaintiff no.1 and defendants no.5 and 7 in the one third share of the Devi Dayal and accordingly the plaintiffs and defendant no. 4, 5 and 7 are entitled to get their names mutated in place of Devi Dayal. The defendants no. 1 to 3 are the children of defendant no.4 and during the lifetime of defendant no.4, they don't have any right or share in the property. Even if it is presumed that they have any share, still they can get the same from the share of defendant no. 4 only. Devi Dayal had one LIC policy whose maturity amount is ₹ 44,000/- and the plaintiffs as well as the defendants no.4, 5 and 7 are entitled for equal share in the same. However, as the name of defendant no.5 is mentioned as a nominee, therefore, the same cannot be adverse to the rights of plaintiffs as well as defendants no.4, 5 and 7. Accordingly, it was claimed that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share in the maturity amount of LIC i.e., ₹ 22,000/-. It was further claimed that defendant no.5 is trying very hard to receive the said maturity amount, but the Insurance Company must pay t