Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalmani @ Lalman vs Ramanand [D] Thr.Lrs. Ganesh on 1 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 796 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. LALMANI @ LALMAN S/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILL. TEEKAR POST
BILBILINA TOAL P.S. GOVINGARH, TAH. HUZUR,
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. KATHURI @ SHYAMKALI W/O
SOORYABHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILL.
TEEKAR POST BILBILINA TOAL P.S. GOVINGARH,
TAH. HUZUR, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMKARAN (DIED) LRS MALLI KEVAT W/O
RAMKARAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R / O VILL.
TEEKAR POST BILBILINA TOAL P.S. GOVINGARH,
TAH. HUZUR, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AJAY KEVAT S/O RAMKARAN KEVAT, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, R / O VILL. TEEKAR POST
BILBILINA TOAL P.S. GOVINGARH, TAH. HUZUR,
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PAPPU KEVAT W/O LATE RAMKARAN KEVAT,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, VILLAGE R/O BARO,
NEAR VISHVAVIDYALAYA NAI BASTI, P.S.
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. RAJESH KEVAT S/O LATE RAMKARAN KEVAT,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE BARO, NEAR
VISHVAVIDYALAYA NAI BASTI, P.S.
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. MAYA KEVAT D/O RAMKARAN KEVAT, W/O
BHAIYA KEVAT, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, VILLAGE
Signature Not Verified
PATAN, POST KALBEELIYA, P.S. BIRSINGHPUR,
SAN
DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST
8. RAJMAN S/O LATE RAMADHAR, AGED ABOUT 18
YEARS, R/O VILL. TEEKAR POST BILBILINA TOAL
2
P.S. GOVINGARH, TAH. HUZUR, DISTT. REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. VIJAY S/O LATE RAMADHAR, AGED ABOUT 10
YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH THEIR MOTHER SMT.
SUNITA KEVAT R / O VILL. TEEKAR POST
BILBILINA TOAL P.S. GOVINGARH, TAH. HUZUR,
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. KIRAN S/O LATE RAMADHAR, AGED ABOUT 3
YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH THEIR MOTHER
SMT. SUNITA KEVAT R / O VILL. TEEKAR POST
BILBILINA TOAL P.S. GOVINGARH, TAH. HUZUR,
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SHIVDHAR S/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED ABOUT 20
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOURS R / O VILL.
TEEKAR, TAH. HUZUR, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. SHIVRAJ SINGH S/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED ABOUT
18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURS R / O VILL.
TEEKAR, TAH. HUZUR, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. SURYAVATI D/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, R /O VILL. TEEKAR, TAH. HUZUR, DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. MU, LALLI (DIED) W/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, VILLAGE TEEKAR, P.S.
GOVINDGARH, TEHSIL HUZUR REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH) (DELETED)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI UMESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAMANAND [D] THR.LRS. GANESH S/O
RAMANAND, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILL.
BAIJNATH, TAH HUZUR, DISTT. REWA. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SURESH S/O LALTE RAMANAND, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O VILL. BAIJNATH, TAH HUZUR, DISTT.
REWA. (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
3. MANGIRIYA W/O LATE RAMANAND R/O VILL.
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST
BAIJNATH, TAH HUZUR, DISTT. REWA. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3
4. SURJIYA D/O LATE RAMANAND R/O VILL.
BAIJNATH, TAH HUZUR, DISTT. REWA. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAMSAKHI D/O LATE RAMANAND R/O VILL.
BAIJNATH, TAH HUZUR, DISTT. REWA. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. RAMSAHAY S/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAJDOORI, R/O VILLAGE
TEEKAR, BILBILIHA TOLA, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MUS. PHULVASIYA D/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARSR/O VILLAGE TEEKAR,
BILBILIHA TOLA, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTT. REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. MU. BUTNIYA W/O RAMJIYAVAN, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TEEKAR, BILBILIHA TOLA,
TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the defendants/appellants being
aggrieved of order dated 15/12/2011 passed by learned 6th Additional District
Judge, Rewa in Miscellaneous Case No.89/2010 reviewing the judgment dated
20/02/2007 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.45A/2005 by the Court of
learned 6th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rewa on the ground
that plaintiffs had filed a suit bearing Registration No. RCS No.295A/2005
instituted on 01/11/1985 before the Court of learned 7th Civil Judge Class-2,
Rewa.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST It is submitted that plaintiffs claimed that defendants/appellants are
children of late Shri Ramjiyavan from his concubine, therefore, they have no
share in the property of Shri Ramjiyavan, as a result, they sought a declaration
and permanent injunction to the effect that property of Shri Ramjiyavan in
possession of the defendants be declared to be the property of the plaintiffs
and defendants be restrained from alienating the said property.
This, suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and learned trial Court
had decided that the defendants being not son from a duly married wife of Shri
Ramjiyavan are not entitled to any share in the property, thus, a direction was
given to them to return half of the property in their possession in favour of the
plaintiffs.
Defendants challenged this finding on Issue No.2 namely- whether
children born from a concubine are entitled to property of Shri Ramjiyavan in
nagative, defendants filed an appeal and in the appeal vide judgment dated
20/02/2007 this finding was reversed by learned appellate Court holding that in
the suit property as well as other ancestral property of Shri Ramjiyavan.
Plaintiffs and defendants have equal share in the property.
Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that
in fact plaintiffs have no share in the property of Shri Ramjiyavan which was
subject-matter of the suit inasmuch as they had already taken their share in the
property and had separated from Shri Ramjiyavan during his lifetime. Shri
Ramjiyavan was looked after by the defendants and their mother, therefore,
defendants alone have share in the said property. Thus, clarification issued by
the Court vide impugned order passed on an application under Order 47 Rule 1
of CPC clarifying the situation that besides plaintiffs and defendants having
Signature Not Verified
SAN
equal share in the suit property and the ancestral property of late Shri
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST
Ramjiyavan in equal proportion, they are entitled to maintain their title and
possession.
Now appellants' counsel is pressing and seeking a relief that plaintiffs
cannot be given share in the suit.
The fact of the matter is that legal position is well settled. As per Hindu
Succession Act, children born from a concubine are not illegitimate, They have
share in the property of their biological father. But, it is also true that Shri
Ramjiyavan died intestate i.e. without leaving any Will. Thus, when Shri
Ramjiyavan has not left any Will showing that he had already given share of the
property to the plaintiffs and had severed relationship with them through a valid
and legally acceptable partition nor there is any copy of the partition deed
available, then defendants having not file any counter claim to the property in
possession of the plaintiffs are now estopped from saying that plaintiffs had
already received their share and had separated along with mother, they are not
entitled to receive any further share in the property.
Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST
