RM I EséoNDENTs ( 1) / @ WW® ’ SINGLE BENCH g OF caiyixseggg gr BILgspUR sq: No, /§% (2og5 / ‘. / Waisali son ef Inayat, ag’eVd‘67 yaars, resident of village Dipadih,Khurd, Police $tatiion Shankergarh, Tahsu- Kusmi,’ District ¥ Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) , I (DEFENDENT N04) VERSUS Mohmad Rojani Widow of Ali Mohmad, 1‘ ‘ aged about 62 years; resident of i village Depadih,Khurd, Police Station Shankergarh, Tahsil Kusmi, District— v~ Sarguj a ( Chhat ti sgarh) ( PLgINTIEF) State of Chhattisgarh through “the Collector Sarguja Ambikapur. ‘ k» (PERFORM DEFENDENT) ‘ » ' ( ‘ ‘; /_l sEooND CIVIL g, Pag UNDER sacIION mg OE CIVIL PaonEDURg 000g 129g V N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC TUBE ”1‘? ‘ ‘ ‘1: XLHC— 22 20/01/2006 Shri J.S. Baraik, Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent No. 1. Shn' Akhji Agrawa], 'Pa No.2] Stats. ’ Heani on admission and (m M.CPN0.524/ 2005. Respondent Novlwmed £ partition ali'd after parlition f0 ’ that'her father Inayat Ali w] Appellant dies owner of the snit properties, b‘ No. 1 on the ground thaf she is r3aughter of ‘I'nel' Lawyer for the reépondent pmperties. Inayat A11 mgégtiidng non—joinder of‘ time of’ marriage has all respondent No.1. Aftér the _ recorded in mvemie records mspo‘nden‘t No. 1 Within time. Both me Courks bel l suit for declaration of her title r possession 0f her share averrixig 10 is‘dead was owner of the suit )t dispute that Inayat Ali was the pt ‘mfuted the claim of respondent uo‘t the real sister of appellant ~and raised question seven acres of' land to his wife ’ towards “Meter” out ofrthe s it' land and mayat Ali dun‘ng his life'u'me transferred two acres 3f land to Sahabuddin, the son of atb of lxiayat' A11 his name was that has noi been challenged by ‘Iafter meticulous appreciation of evidence haile held that the ap ellant and respondent No. 1 are real brother and sister; The suit roperty is self—acquired property of_ ‘ v i [new A p ' o o e d XI—HC-22 311mm a their father Inayat Ali. ’lAnottinr‘g aily'land by appellant to. his wife towards Meherr'does not nec‘Essitate to implead her; in the suit ahd the suit is Within 11'me. refore, the suit for declamtjon, partifion and separate possessio i has been deemed by the trial Comt and confirmed by the mst A pellate Court Appellant 1n the memo appeal has fomulated th followmg substantial questtons of law YA) Whether ihe n'ghi o inherit the suit land to the exteni of 2/6 accrues to the plaimte respondent just after death ofInayaa Ah? ' (B) Whether the propert remit/ed m lieu of den- property ofa Musltm w man If so, seven (lass of the 1am out of the uit lands heoomgs thé personal property ‘of Bi the ’wtfe 0f the appellant ' \ (C) Whether in abs of Samwn'Bi the wife of the appetiant is ne ssary party to the suit could be granted m 1f so no vahd d [mem‘ e f e s . e e e ‘ . XI-HC—22 W W $9 wig/w” mm WW%@W Wmmw WW , 3/ . émwm ,\ ‘ , v (D) Whether concept ofjointness in the Muslim family £s permissible and if so whether joint the \ wltivation gives arise a right to planti}?/ reSpondent. ’19, Saxman Bi,’ the wife of app: llant if has been allotted any land by yer husband towglds Me'her, is not a necessary party in the suit because Inayat Ali was >the owner of suit land and after his death appellant and respondent No.1 statiné themselves to be son and daughter are claiming the Suit land. After the death of Inayat Ali the suit has been bmught for eclaration of title, pardn'on and separate possession, by respond t No. 1. Joint eultjvation has no the instant suit, admittedly the property of Inayat Ali. The appellant and respondent are b ther and sister is a linding of fact and both the Courts below r meticulous appreciation of evidence have decided the same. Inayat Ali had died and after his death appellant as the son,and respondent No. 1 as the daughter are entitled for partition and p ssession. Recording the name of any person in revenue record relevancy in the instant suit. suit property was self-ac not confer any title on him and if any part of self acquired property has been alienated by its owner that cannotbe challenged by any thud Deisot/i , q I ‘ e d s XI—HC-22 EW,WI¢W am Wag mS/qL/w/oy W , After taklng into considei mcord and 3150 taking into con: ,by counsel for the appellant‘ substantial question of kw invq appeal is liable to be dismiss€d % ,[n viEW of the above d i disposed of Fh'onrall the facts and’ ‘maten‘al on Eidcmtion the arguments advanced L I am of the opinion ghat no Wes in this ‘appeal. Therefore, the is accoxdingly dismissed. ‘Ider, M.C.P.No.524/2005 stands Sdl- E MKShrivastava Judge [1%W “‘x: 2