That the said Kaveribai said to have sold the land in dispute through a Sale Deed dated 18.11.1971.
The original defendant number.1 and 2the State of Madhya Pradesh and another appellants herein opposed the suit by filing a separate written statement.
2.3 Kaveribai as original defendant number3 filed a written statement and admitted that she had been divorced from the plaintiffDungaji.
The parties led their evidence.
Kaveribai, though, there had been numbercrossexamination on the point and numberrebuttal was led evidence on mere surmises or suspicion that theory of such divorce was put to defeat the provision of the Ceiling Act?
That the proceedings were initiated before the Competent Authority under the Act regarding determination of surplus land.
That being aggrieved by Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ujjain, Dungaji preferred First Appeal No.
The Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court came to be companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court.
She also admitted that she had inherited a land measuring 19.89 hectares from her motherAmritabai.
Defendant number.1 and 2 denied that Dungaji had ever been divorced with Kaveribai and the land inherited by her from her mother was number to be included in the land held by the family of Dungaji.
Could the property inherited by Smt.
The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law Had the findings recorded by both the Courts below that the customary divorce between late Dungaji and late Smt.
The Trial Court framed the requisite issues.
Kaveribai from her mother form part of family property of late Dungaji and thus be declared surplus?
On appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit by Judgment and Decree dated 22.10.2002.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.580 of 2003, original defendant number.1 and 2the State of Madhya Pradesh and another, have preferred the present appeal.
The plaintiff also pleaded that proper procedure had number been followed by the Competent Authority while passing the order dated 18.05.1976.
The original plaintiff carried the matter to the High Court by way of Second Appeal No.580 of 2003.
The learned Trial Court specifically observed and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there is any customary divorce which has taken place between the plaintiff and Kaveribai.
Kaveribai had number been proved, been perverse and arbitrary, disregarding the oral evidence which had support of the documents and affidavits of both late Dungaji and late Smt.
The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under That, Kaveribai, wife of Dungaji, in the year 1966 inherited 19.89 hectares of land land in dispute after the death of her mother.
R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Second Appeal No.580 of 2003 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondentoriginal plaintiff Dungaji number represented by his legal representatives and companysequently has decreed the suit declaring that the marriage between Dungaji original plaintiff and his wife Kaveribai had been dissolved by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2019.07.16 way of customary divorce, much prior to the companying into force 173340 IST Reason the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act and that the property inherited by Kaveribai from her mother, after divorce, cannot be treated to be a family property of Dungaji for the purposes of determination of surplus area under the Act and the High Court has also held that the Competent Authority had number followed the mandatory provisions of law before passing the order dated 18.05.1976 and companysequently has declared the same order as null and void, the State of Madhya Pradesh and another have preferred the present appeal.
