TARAMANI DEVI Vs. GOVIND RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17th March 1986 and decree dated 8th April, 1986 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bettiah, in Title Appeal No. 16/99 of 1984-85 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19th May, 1984 and 30th May, 1984 respectively passed by 2nd Additional Munsif, Bettiah (West Champaran), in Title Suit No. 68/82/T.S. 2/84. The plaintiffs of the suit are the appellants here.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondents' case in the lower Court was that there was one Ram Chandra Singhania who left behind four sons, namely, Chhedilal, Madan Lal, Ramauter and Haridwar. The suit Plot No 32 amoung other plots were owned by Ram Chandra Singhania and in the year 1950, the four sons entered into partition of their family property by registered deed and the suit Plot No. 32 under Khata No 7 fell to the share of Haridwar Singhania (Defendant No. 2 in the suit). However, subsequently, Defendant No. 2 ruined his business and he wanted to shift to Nepal to launch any fresh business and towards this end, he took money from the plaintiffs who are Madan Lal Singhania and Ram Autar Singhania. However, Defendant No 2 failed in his business in Nepal also and he came back and was allowed to live in a portion of the house of the plaintiffs. He was also allotted to Kathas of land already allotted to the plaintiffs' father The entire area of the suit Plot No 32 was given to the two plaintiffs jointly by Ram Autar Singhania, Defendant No. 2 in the year 1954. Since then, the plaintiff-respondents \vere coming in possession of the suit land which was 7 kathas 4 1/2 dhurs out of Plot No. 32 along with other portion of this plot but Defendant No. 1 who is shrewd man and was of devious character came in contact with Defendant No. 2 Haridwar Singhania who was prevailed by upon Defendant No. 1 to execute a fraudulent deed of gift dated 25th July 1975 (Ext-B) and on the basis of the same, they tried to get his name mutated in Mutation Case No 109/1978-79, The Circle Officer, by wrong and illegal order passed in this mutation case, allowed Defendant No. 1 Gobind Ram Sharma to be mutated for the suit land. Then, the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the D C.L R (Revenue Appeal No. 54 of 1981). The D C L. R remanded the matter back to the Circle Officer to pass order after notice to all the interested parties and after inquiry into the factual of possession. However, the Circle Officer again passed an erroneous order of mutation in favour of Defendant No 1 The plaintiffs had, therefore, filed the suit for declaration that the deed of gift was void and illegal. That was the sole relief sought by the plaintiff-respondents.

(3.) The Defendant No. 1 filed his separate written statement and among other formal objections, he built up a substantive case from paragraph 18 of the written statement that, of course, the suit plot was subject of partition among the four sons of Ram Chandra Singhania in the year 1950. but subsequently, in the year 1954 that partition deed of 1950 was challenged by Ram Autar Singhania who was minor in the year 1960 and thus, there was repartition of the family lands as a result of which several lands were exchanged among the four brothers and the eastern half of Plot No. 32 was given to the plaintiffs by Haridwar (Defendant No. 2), but the western half of 7 others was retained by Haridwar Singhania. In the year 1971, Defendant No. 2 quoted the disputed, land (suit land) to Defendant No. 1 on the occasion of Shraddh ceremony of Chhedilal Singhania on account of the fact that Defendant No. 1 Gobind Ram Sharma was a Joshi of the family or the plaintiffs However, in order to avoid unnecessary controversy, a registered deed of gift was executed by Defendant No. 2 on 25th July, 1975 regarding the suit land Thereafter, Defendant No 1 obtained mutation of the suit land on 21st August 1979 by the order of the Circle Officer and he had been coming in possession of the same. The plaintiffs had no title and the deed of gift was valid, legal and legitimately executed by Defendant No 2.