GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) TITLE Suit No. 5 of 1981 was filed for declaration of the plaintiffs title over the suit land, detailed in Schedule B to the plaint, measuring 1.44 acres and for further declaration that the sale deed dated 23.6.1953 said to have been executed by their respective father and mother along with the heirs of the recorded tenant Budhan Uraon in favour of the defendant No. 1 was void and not binding on them.
(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, it was detected on 25.11.1980 that the defendant No. 1 fraudulently obtained a sale deed in his favour on 23.6.1953 and the defendants 2 and 4 orally told them that they had never executed any sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. On the other hand, case of the defendant No. 1 was that Somar Uraon died before 1939, leaving behind his minor son, Bijan Uraon, and widow Mosstt. Bandhani. Similarly on the death of Ganesh Uraon, his entire interest in the suit land devolved upon his sons, Lalo, Fagu, Chauthl, Jhari and Ramlal. On 23.6.1953, Bandhani, the widow of Somar, son of Budhan for herself and on behalf of her minor son, Baijan, as his guardian along with five sons of Ganesh, another son of Budhan executed a registered sale deed in his favour and sold the suit land, measuring 1.44 acres of plot No. 155, appertaining to Khata No. 28, situated in village Lakhey, in Hazaribagh district, for valuable consideration and he came into physical possession thereof. The reason for transfer according to the defendant No. 1 was that both Somar and Ganesh had left village Lakhey, during their life time before 1939 and had shifted to village Pundari and so their heirs had difficulty in cultivation of the suit lands and they had also to repay loan incurred in the Shradh of their respective father Somar and Ganesh.
(3.) THE suit was decreed holding that it was not barred by time. There was no clear evidence to show that the plaintiffs ancestors had shifted from village Lakhey to village Pundari. The defendant No. 1 tailed to explain the circumstances under which the sale deed. Exhibit B, was executed in the year 1953. He also failed to prove his possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period. It was parti land and nothing was brought on record to prove adverse possession of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 was a minor in the year 1953, as such alienation of his property could have been made only for his benefits.;