RAMJEE RAI Vs. GOPAL AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs, and is directed against the judgment and the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Arrah, dated the 21st December, 1956, affirming those of the Munsif of the same place dated the 14th December, 1956.

(2.) One Banka Rai died about twenty-five years ago leaving him surviving three minor sons, Ramjee Rai (Plaintiff No. 1) Sheoji Rai (defendant No. 5), Lakshman Rai (defendant No. 6) and his widow, Musammat Sulakshana Kuer. During the minority of her sons, Musammat Sulakshana Kuer was managing the estate. On the 15th September 1932, she usufructuarily mortgaged 1.88 acres of land for a consideration of Rs 690 in favour of Rambilas Ram. On the 6th August, 1944, defendants 5 and 6 who have been described as the defendants second party transferred by a registered deed of sale, Exhibit B. 2.27 acres of land comprised in survey plot 135, 143 and 144, to the defendants first party for a consideration of Rs. 700/- with a stipulation that out of the consideration of Rs. 700, Rs. 690/-would be paid to Rambilas Ram in redemption of the aforesaid mortgage. There is no dispute that Rs. 690/- was paid to Rambilas Ram and the mortgage was thereby redeemed. On the 13th December, 1954- the present suit was brought by plaintiff No. 1 along with his sons and the minor sons of the defendants second party, the executants of the sale deed for a declaration that the sale deed of the 6th August, 1944, is illegal, void inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs and also for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative, recovery of possession, in respect of 2.27 acres of land.

(3.) The defendants first party resisted the suit and supported the sale deed in their favour on the, ground that Sheoji Rai, defendant No. 5, was the karta of the joint family and that the sale deed was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate and was, therefore, binding on the plaintiffs also.