Decided on July 03,1970

R.K. Sanahal Singh And Another Appellant
Minor R.K. Priyakumar Singh And Others Respondents


R.S. Bindra, J. - (1.) This second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10 -6 -1968 by which the Additional District Judge Shri P.N. Roy dismissed with costs their first appeal arising out of the trial Court's decree, dated 9th of November 1966, dismissing with costs their suit for possession by partition of one half share in the ingkhol (homestead) bearing patta No. 85/51 -I.W. JUDGEMENT_12_LAWS(GAU)7_1970.jpg According to the allegations set out in the plaint the ingkhol in dispute was the ownership of Angousana Singh and on his death it was inherited equally by his two sons Atonsana Singh and Sanatomba Singh. Since Sanatomba Singh happened to be minor at the time of the death of his father, the ingkhol was mutated solely in the name of Atonsana Singh in the year 1908 -09 subject, it was alleged, to the understanding that Sanatomba Singh's name shall also be incorporated in the revenue records no sooner he attained majority. However, before that understanding could take practical shape, the two brothers (Atonsana Singh and Sanatomba Singh) died. It was further alleged that firstly Sanatomba Singh and after his death his two sons, the plaintiffs, enjoyed joint possession of the ingkhol along with Atonsana Singh and Priyokumar Singh. The plaintiff's as well as their father's possession, it was added, was confined to the northern one half of the ingkhol where they used to grow vegetables, while the defendant No. 1 and his father had built a house in the southern half of the ingkhol. This arrangement by which the descendants of Angousana Singh had been jointly owning and possessing the ingkhol was disturbed by Priyokumar Singh after he managed to secure the mutation of the ingkhol in his own name in the year 1960. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of that mutation by appropriate proceedings before the Revenue Authorities but they failed to get the same reversed with the consequence that they were forced to file the suit resulting in the instant second appeal.
(3.) Another fact mentioned in the plaint was that the plaintiff's father Sanatomba Singh had purchased another ingkhol, bearing patta No. 85/52 - I. W., with his own money on the adjacent north of the ingkhol in dispute. This fact was stated in the plaint probably to forestall the plea of defendant No. 1 that ingkhol No. 85/52 had been inherited by the family from Angousana Singh.
(4.) Priyokumar Singh alone resisted the suit, the other defendants having been proceeded against ex parte. He admitted the correctness of the pedigree table given above. In substance, his defence was that the two ingkhols covered by patta Nos. 85/51 and 85/52 were the ownership of their grandfather Angousana Singh, that on the death of the latter the ingkhol under patta No. 85/51 was inherited by his father Atonsana Singh while the other ingkhol was inherited by his uncle Sanatomba Singh, that right from the date of the death of Angousana Singh the plaintiffs or their father had never enjoyed the possession of the ingkhol in dispute, and that as such their suit was barred by time. In the alternative he pleaded that he had acquired ownership of the entire ingkhol by prescriptive title. Quite a few other technical and legal objections were also adopted by the defendant No. 1.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.