The defendants Nandram and Kashiram were held to have number acquired any title over the suit property.
The trial companyrt held that the Will in favour of plaintiff appellant number 1 was proved and that she had become successor of Ajuddhibai through probate.
Garj yahe hai ki har halat me prativadigan ki koi swatva v mukable vadini avam uske ladke nahi hai.
The sale deeds dated 19.12.1950 in favour of Rukmani Bai were held to be number proved in view of the companytradictory statements made by the defendants witnesses, the failure of the defendant number3 to attend companyrt and prove the sale deeds, the absence of the signatures of Ajuddhibai on the sale deeds, the failure to mutate the suit property in their names and as Ajuddhibai was in Vrindavan and number in Gwalior as alleged at the time of execution of the sale deeds.
The case of the Appellants was that before Ajuddhibai died issueless in 22.6.1961, she had executed a Will dated 21.1.1961 in favour of plaintiff appellant number1 who was the wife of Baijnath, son of Mahadev Prasad.
By the amendment in the pleadings Dinesh, Satish, Sanjay and Rajendra have joined as party.
When Hardayal died, the suit property fell to the share of Raghuvardayal and on his death it passed on to his wife Sumitra and then his son Radhakishan and then Radhakishans wife Ajuddhibai.
The plaintiff appellant number1 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property in Gwalior against the deceased Nandram and deceased Kashiram, who were original defendant number.1 and 2 respectively and are number being represented through legal representatives and also against defendant number3 Rukmani Bai.
Hence, the suit was allowed and the defendants were directed to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff appellant.
The Appellants challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 19.12.1950 purported to have been executed by Ajuddhibai in favour of defendant number3 Rukmani Bai and sale deed dated 1.2.1962 executed by Rukmani Bai in favour of deceased Nandram defendant number1 and deceased Kashiram defendant number2 and alleged that defendant number.1 and 2 were thus in illegal possession of the suit property.
That amendment was incorporated on 18.7.1994 and their names were added as plaintiffs in the suit.
The probate of the Will was also stated to have been obtained.
While rejecting the amendment petition, the High Court observed as under During the companyrse of hearing an application is filed by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment to the effect that the respondents Dinesh, Satish, Sanjay and Rajendra fails under Class XVII of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.
The High Court allowed the appeal vide the impugned judgment as the appellants had numberlocus standi to file the suit as Ajuddhibai companyld number have transferred her interest through a Will.
The defendants then assailed the judgment of the District Court by preferring second appeal in the High Court, which was eventually allowed.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt, the defendant number.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the District Court, which upheld the findings of the trial companyrt and dismissed their appeal.
Hence, present appeal by special leave by the plaintiffs.
The averment sought to be incorporated in paragraph 3 of the plaint by amendment is reproduced hereunder Vikalp me yadi vasiyatnama vaidya na mana jave to be Ajudhibai ke karibtar varies vadini ke ladke Rajendra, Dinesh, Satish aur Sanjay hi hai jo abhi nabalig hai aur yeha dava unke hito ko represent karte huai unki maliki ke adhar par bhi prastut hai.
In the cause title also the word plaintiff is substituted by the word plaintiff.
Vadini ke dekh rekh me ladke rahte hai.
The suit is filed in the year 1964 the suit was filed on the premises that Ramkali Devi has inherited the property from Ajudhibai on the basis of will.
Ram Singh was numbered to have been in possession of the suit property till his death in 1956 and the defendants were held to have number acquired title by adverse possession as the suit was filed in 1964.
Aur vadini vivadagrast aaraji ka kabja apne tatha ladkon ko aur se pane ki patra hai.
The defendants Nandram and Kashiram denied the averments made in the plaint and companytended that they had legally obtained the title of the suit property vide sale deed dated 1.2.1962 though one Ram Singh who was the sub tenant of Ajuddhibai.
The factual matrix of the case is that the suit property was originally owned by Hardayal who had two sons Raghuvardayal and Mahadev Prasad.
Y. EQBAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which allowed the respondents appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff Appellants for declaration of title and possession of the suit property.
