Full Judgment
Second Appeal No.920/2013.
3.2.2014.
Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for appellant.
Heard on admission.
Perused the record.
This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2013 passed by III Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Regular Civil Appeal No.123-A/2011; whereby, while dismissing the same, judgment and decree dated 30.6.2010 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Jatara District Tikamgarh in Civil Suit No.73-A/2009 has been upheld.
Dispute pertains to 1/6th share of the land bearing KhaSr.No.78, 79, 175, 191, 192, 210, 211 and 320 situated at Village Khumanganj Tahsil Palera District Tikamgarh.
Except defendant no.1 Jamvanti, all otheRs.the plaintiffs and defendants, are legal heirs of Premlal Kurmi whereas the defendant no.1 is the wife of defendant no.3 in whose favour the widow of Late Premlal Kurmi had executed a sale-deed dated 23.7.2009 in respect of suit property.
The suit was for declaration that the sale deed dated 23.7.2009 is null and void and not binding as the entire property was undivided Joint Hindu Property and for permanent injunction.
The claim was denied by the defendants stating that the property was not a Joint Hindu Undivided Property but was duly partitioned by Premlal during his lifetime and the respective persons were in possession of their share.
Trial Court framed the following issues : 1& D;k okni= ds in Ø- 1 esas of.kZr Ñf"k Hkwfe fLFkr xzke [kqekuxat rglhy iysjk ftyk Vhdex<+ e-iz- oknh ,oa :: 2 :: Second Appeal No.920/2013.
izfroknhx.k ds la;qDr fgUnw vfoHkkftr ifjokj dh laifRr gksdj iSr`d laifRr Fkh \ 2& D;k izfroknh Ø- 2 }kjk izfroknh Ø- 1 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ;i= fnukWad 23&07&09 oknhx.k ds fgrksa ds fo:) 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh gS \ 3& D;k oknhx.k okni= ds vuqrks"k ds inksa esa pkgh xbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa \ 4& okn O;; ,oa lgk;rk \ The trial Court, on the basis of the material evidence on record, returned a finding of the partition having taken place during the lifetime of Premlal, declined to interfere.
In paragraph 8 and 12 of the judgment, it is recorded :- ^^8- ----------- oknhx.k us vius okni= esa dgh Hkh bl laca/k esa fofuZfn"V vfHkopu ugha fd;s gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe esa lHkh oknhx.k ,oa izfroknh Øekad 2].3].4 la;qDr :i ls LoRo o vf/kiR; esa Fks A oknhx.k }kjk bl laca/k esa Hkh vfHkopu ugha fd;s x;s gS fd firk ds ejus ds ckn muds ifjokj dk izeq[k dkSu Fkk rFkk fdlds funsZ'k esa la;qDr ifjokj dk lapkyu ,oa la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifRr dh ns[kjs[k dh tkrh Fkh A vtqZu ¼izfr- lk- 1½ eq[; ijh{k.k ds in Øekad 1 esa ;g dFku djrk gS fd ^^esjs firk us vius thoudky esa vius LoRo o vf/kiR; dh Hkwfe dk Ñ"kd Hkwfe dk vkilh foHkktu dj fn;k Fkk ftlds vuqlkj lHkh i`Fkd&i`Fkd gks x;s Fks vkSj lHkh yksx viuk i`Fkd i`Fkd fuokldj viuh xqtj olj djus yxs rFkk lcds fuokl i`Fkd i`Fkd gS A^^ Lo;a oknhx.k us ;|fi fookfnr Hkwfe dk la;qDr ifjokj dh vfoHkkftr lEifRr rFkk lgnkf;dh lEifRr gksus ds laca/k esa vfHkopu fd;s gS fdUrq lk{; mlds foijhr izLrqr dh gS rFkk lk{; ds nkSjku oknhx.k us fookfnr Hkwfe dk caVokjk iwoZ esa gh gks tkus ds laca/k esa dFku fd;s gS A izfroknh vtqZuizlkn izfr-lk- 1 us Hkh Hkwfe dk vkilh caVokjk dj fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa izfrijh{k.k ds in Øekad 1 esa dFku fd;s :: 3 :: Second Appeal No.920/2013.
gS A izn'kZ ih- 4 dh [kljk iap'kkyk dh lR;izfrfyih ds vuqlkj Hkh izseyky ds i'pkr~ mlds uke ntZ Hkwfe ij izfroknh Øekad 2].3].4 rFkk oknh Øekad 1].2].3 dk uke leku Hkkx esa ntZ fd;k x;k gS A Lo;a ?.kukjke ¼ok-lk- 1½ us Hkh izfrijh{k.k ds in Øekad 8 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;g dguk lgh gS fd caVokjk ds vuqlkj lHkh HkkbZ;kas dk ,oa eka dk cjkcj fgLls ij ifjorZu ntZ fd;k x;k gS].eSus o lHkh us ifjorZu djk;k Fkk A ;g dguk lgh gS fd Hkw vfHkys[kksa esa eka dk fgLlk 1@5 Hkkx ij ntZ gS A bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd mHk;i{kksa esa gh caVokjk gksus ds rF; dks viuh lk{; esa Lohdkj fd;k gS A izn'kZ ih- 4 ds vuqlkj Hkh oknhx.k ,oa izfroknh Øekad 2].3].4 dk uke fookfnr Hkwfe ij leku Hkw Hkkx ds lanHkZ esa jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ gksuk ifjyf{kr gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd Lo;a mHk;i{k gh muds e/; vkilh caVokjk gksus ds rF; dks Lohdkj djrs gS rFkk izn'kZ ih-4 ds vuqlkj Hkw jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa cjkcj cjkcj Hkw Hkkx ij mudk uke ntZ gksuk fookfnr Hkwfe ds lanHkZ esa ifjyf{kr gS ,slh fLFkfr ess fookfnr Hkwfe dk vkilh caVokjk gks tkuss dk rF; fo'oluh; gS A fdlh la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh vfoHkkftr lEifRr ;k lgnkf;dh lEifRr dk caVokjk gks tkus ds i'pkr~ mldh izÑfr vfoHkkftr lEifRr ;k lgnkf;dh lEifRr dh ugha jg tkrh A bl izdkj Li"V gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe oknh ,oa izfroknhx.k ds la;qDr fgUnw vfoHkkftr ifjokj dh gksdj iS=d lEifRr ugha gS A vr% okniz'u Øekad 1 dk fujkdj.k vizekf.kr :i ls fd;k tkrk gS A ------- 12- oknh ?.kukjke ds okni= ds in Øekad 2 esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ^^muds firk us vius thoudky esa 9&10 lky igys lHkh HkkbZ;ksa dks leku Hkkx ls Hkwfe dk caVokjk dj fn;k FkkA^^ oknh us vius i{k ds leFkZu esa izn'kZ ih- 1 dk caVokjkukek dh dfFkr ewy izfr izLrqr dh gS A ftlesa oknh vkSj mlds HkkbZ;ksa ds laca/k esa fookfnr Hkwfe ds fofHkUu [kljk :: 4 :: Second Appeal No.920/2013.
uacjksa dks lHkh HkkbZ;ksa ds e/; rFkk Hkwfe [kljk uacj 320 izseyky o ijehckbZ dks fn;s tkus dk mYys[k gS A dfFkr caVokjkukek 05@06@98 dk gksuk oknhx.k }kjk dfFkr gS A izn'kZ ih-1 ds dfFkr caVokjkukes esa ;g Hkh mYys[k gS fd ekrk firk ds e`r gksus ij 1@5 Hkwfe ds gdnkj gksxsa A izdj.k es izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukek esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dks fo'okl djus ds iwoZ oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukek dh fo'oluh;rk dks ij[kk tkuk vko';d gS A izdj.k esa ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd oknhx.k us dfFkr caVokjkukek 05@06@98 ds laca/k esa dksbZ fofuZfn"V vfHkopu ;k mldk mYys[k vius okni= esa ugha fd;k gS A ;fn okLrfod :i ls fnukad 05@06@98 ls gh izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukek dk vfLrRo Fkk rks ;g oknhx.k ds fy;s ,d okn dk lqn`<+ vk/kkj Fkk ftldk okni= esa uk rks dksbZ fofuZfn"V vfHkopu fd;k tkuk].uk gh fdlh izdkj ls izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukek dk mYys[k ;k lanHkZ uk fy;k tkuk izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukesa dh fo'oluh;rk dks iw.kZr% lansgkLin cuk nSr.gS A oknh ?.kukjke ¼ok- lk- 1 ½ vius izfrijh{k.k ds in Øekad 8 esa ;g dFku djrk gS fd ^^,slk ugha gS fd bl caVokjs ds fglkc ls geus tehu dk ifjorZu ugha djk;k].;g dguk lgh gS fd caVokjs ds vuqlkj lHkh HkkbZ;ksa dk ,oa eka dk cjkcj fgLls ij ifjorZu ntZ fd;k x;k gS].eSus o lHkh us ifjorZu djk fy;k gS].^^ fdUrq izdj.k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd oknhx.k dh vksj ls dfFkr izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukek ds vk/kkj ij 05@06@98 ds rRdky ;k dqN le; i'pkr~ Hkh dksbZ caVokjs ds vuqlkj ukekarj.k vkfn dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gks rks bl laca/k esa dksbZ izek.k mudh vksj ls izLrqr ugha gS A ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[k gS fd oknh ;gka ;g rks dgrk gS fd caVokjs ds vuqlkj tehu dk ifjorZu djk fy;k Fkk fdUrq ftl izdkj ls izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukek esa oknh ?.kukjke ¼ok-lk- 1½ ds HkkbZ;ksa o muds firk o eka ds chp ftu Hkwfe [kljk uacjksa dks caVokjk esa fn;s tkus dk mYys[k gS bl izdkj ls Hkw jktLo vfHkys[kksas esa :: 5 :: Second Appeal No.920/2013.
izfof"V dh x;h gks rks bl laca/k esa dksbZ izek.k vkfn oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha gS A okLrfod :i ls ;fn izseyky ds }kjk 05@06@98 dks izn'kZ ih- 1 dk caVokjkukek dj fn;k x;k Fkk rks izn'kZ ih- 1 ds vuqlkj jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa izfof"V ds laca/k esa dk;Zokgh vkfn dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh A izn'kZ ih- 1 ds vk/kkj ij fdlh dk;Zokgh dk uk gksuk rFkk oknhx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ fo'oluh; izek.k izLrqr uk gksuk izn'kZ ih- 1 ds caVokjkukek ij lansg dks vkSj cy nSr.gS A^^ Having recorded thus, trial Court upheld the validity of sale deed dated 23.7.2009 and discarded the validity of Batwaranama dated 5.6.1998 (Ex.P-1).These findings arrived at by the trial Court have been affirmed by the Appellate Court.
No material evidence having been commended at to conclude that these findings are perverse, no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings.
Consequently, second appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) vinod JUDGE