BIMAL KISHORE GUPTA Vs. BEENA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is barred by limitation.

(2.) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this revision application is condoned.

(3.) THE plaintiff 'scase in brief, is that holding no. 116 situate in mohalla Bibiganj within Danapur Municipality belonged to one Kailasho Kuer grand mother of plaintiff -opposite party no. 2 Kanhaiya Prasad Gupta. The description of the said holding has been given in Schedule -A of the plaint. Her name was recorded in the records of the Municipality and taxes were being paid during her life time. She died leaving behind her two sons, namely, Lakshmi Narain and Ramchandar Prasad the father of plaintiff -opposite party no. 2, and accordingly, the property described in Scheduie -A of the plaint was inherited by her two sons jointly and they came in possession over the same. However, they did not get the name of their mother removed from the records of the Municipality. Ramchandra Prasad, father of the plaintiff -opposite party no. 2 died and thereafter his share in the joint family property devolved upon plaintiff no. 2, his mother and another brother Sachindanand. The defendantpetitioner was inducted as tenant by Lakshmi Narain, uncle of the plaintiff no. 2, as karta of the family in portion of the holding described in Schedule -A of the plaint on monthly rental of Rs. 200/ - for running the business of cement pipes etc. twenty years back. The defendantpetitioner came in possession as tenant. Later on, Lakshmi Narain entrusted the power of collecting rent to plaintiff no. 2 and the plaintiff no, 2 used to grant receipt to the tenant. On 14.11.1994 the said Lakshmi Narain executed a deed of will with regard to his half share of Schedule -A property in favour of plaintiff no.1, who is wife of plaintiff no. 2. Ram Dulari Devi, mother of plaintiff no. 2 also executed a separate deed of will in favour of plaintiff no. 1. Thus, the plaintiffs became owner of the entire holding mentioned in Schedule -A of the plaint.