Full Judgment
S.A. No.59 of 2009 25.07.2012: Shri Pradeep Naveriya and Ajay Sen, Advocates for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2008, passed in Civil Appeal No.12A/2008, by the Ist Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh confirming the finding recorded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 25.01.2008, passed in Civil Suit No.18A/2006, by Civil Jude Class II, Jatara, District Tikamgarh, this appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed.”
2. It is to be noted that a suit filed seeking declaration of the title with respect to the land situated in Village Karmoura of Araji No.1241, Rakwa 61 Aare, 1244, 1/8th part i.e. 11 Aare of Rakwa 28 Aare. Araji No.1222, 1224, 1225, 1229, 1230, 1240, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1221/1244, Rakwa 121 Aare, 85 Aare, 214 Aare, 125 Arre, 879 Arre 109 Aare, 49 Aare, 24 Aare, 24 Aare, 134 Aare, 69 Aare, 129 Aare respectively total Kita 12, 1/3rd part of total Rakwa 1.180 Hectare, Araji No.1255, 1256, 1257, 9/996th part of Rakwa 20 Aare, 20 Aare, 32 Aare i.e. 8 Aare, Araji No.1221, 1226, 1232, 1233, Rakwa 194 Aare, 198 Aare, 49 Aare, 433 Aare respectively 1/6th part i.e. 144 Aare of total Rakwa 865 Aare. Araji No.21, total Rakwa 546 Aare, Araji No.1029, 1057, Rakwa 6 Aare of Rakwa 125 Aare and 73 Aare total 1.018 Hectare and the land situated in Village Baldevpura of Araji No.721, 723 and 724, Rakwa 1.424 Hectare, Rakwa 113 Aare, 229 Aare. The trial Court relying upon the affidavits (Ex. P3 and Ex. D3), which were executed by the plaintiff and defendant on the same date i.e. 28.01.1991 executed in favour of each other i.e. plaintiff and defendant relinquishing their right with respect to land of Village Karmoura and Village Baldevpura declared that the land of Village Karmoura is of the ownership and title of the plaintiff by virtue of partition so taken place in between the plaintiff and defendant and the land of Village Baldevpura is of the defendant.
The Lower Appellate Court has also confirmed the said finding, against which this appeal has been preferred. 3.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged that in lieu of relinquishing the right of the land of Village Baldevpura the plaintiff has received an amount of Rs.16,000/ as apparent from the affidavit. However, he is having half share in the land of Village Karmoura. The Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court has committed error to accept the partition by way of affidavits in between the plaintiff and defendant and the decree granted by the two Courts below may be set aside. 3.
After hearing Shri Pradeep Naveriya and Shri Ajay Sen learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and on perusal of the record it is apparent that the plaintiff and defendant are the real brothers and they are son of Munna Yadav, who has died.
Munna Yadav was having his land in Village Karmoura as well as in Village Baldevpura as described herein above. Both the brothers by executing the affidavits mutually partitioned the land belonging the Munna Yadav.
The affidavits have been executed in this regard which are the documents exhibited as Ex.
P3 and D3.
On perusal of the both these documents it reveals that relinquishing the right of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff no amount has been taken while relinquishing the right in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff the amount of Rs.16,000/ has been mentioned. In any case both have admitted the fact that the land belonging to Village Karmoura would be of the plaintiff Kanchedi and the land of Village Baldevpura would of the defendant Nandram. The two Courts below have accepted the said documents whereupon the detailed crossexamination has been made by the defendant and the defendant has admitted the contents of the documents in crossexamination. In such a circumstance, two Courts below have not committed any error while decreeing suit filed by the plaintiff and by accepting the partition of the land of Village Karmoura in favour of plaintiff and the land of Village Baldevpura in favour of the defendant. In the considered opinion of this Court the finding so recorded is based on due appreciation, which do not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, no substantial question of arises for consideration before this Court. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed at admission stage. (J.K. Maheshwari) Judge taj.