VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of defendants -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.9.1988 and 20.9.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 69 of 1984 by Shri Jugal Kishore Prasad. 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1984 and 11.7.1984 respectively in Title Suit No. 45 of 1982 passed by the Munsif, Palamau were set aside.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent had filed -the said Title Suit for a declaration regarding the sale deed dated 27.8.1981 (Ext. 1/1) executed by original defendant No. 1 Machu Mahto in favour of defendants -appellant Saraswatia Devi and Manmatia Devi is void, illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff -respondent in view of the fact that the property covered under the said deed is a joint family acquisition. The case of the plaintiff -respondent is that one Shiv Balak Mahto was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit and he stands recorded in respect of the land of khata No. 46 in the Survey Records of Right. He had two sons, namely, Fakira Mahto and Chira Mahto and there had been separation long ago between Fakira Mahto and Chira Mahto and they were in exclusive enjoyment and possession half and half in respect of the land of khata No. 46. Chira Mahto aforesaid died leaving behind his four sons, namely, Triveni Mahto, Pran Mahto original defendant No. 1 Machu Mahto and Ramyad Mahto @ Peku Mahto and there had been a metes and bounds partition between them after the death of Chira Mahto. The plaintiff -respondent and defendant -appellant Ayodhya Mahto and Krishna Mahto are the sons of original defendant Lachu Mahto (since dead) and they are the members of joint Hindu Mitakshara Family and defendant -appellant Saraswatia Devi and Manmatia Devi are the wives of Ayodhya Mahto and Krishna Mahto aforesaid respectively and the ancestral land as well as the land purchased in the name of Machu Mahto as mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit and the land detailed in Schedule B of the plaint acquired by Machu Mahto aforesaid is a joint family acquisition from the joint family fund in his name as karta of the joint family in which the plaintiff -respondent had also contributed. Original defendant No. 1 Lachu Mahto is an old man of 70 years and he was duped and in collusion with defendant -appellant Ayodhya Mahto and Krishna Mahto he has executed the sale deed in respect of Schedule B land aforesaid on 27.8.1981 in favour of defendant -appellant Saraswatia Devi and Manmatia Devi and a cloud has been cast upon the right title and interest of the plaintiff -respondent in respect thereof. It is also alleged that the said acquisition is not the self acquired property of Machu Mahto aforesaid.
(3.) THE case of the defendant -appellant, inter alia, is that Chira Mahto died leaving behind his four sons Triveni Mahto, Pran Mahto, Machu Mahto and Peku Mahto and they all separated in mess and cultivation having their distinct share in the land of khata No. 46. The said Peku Mahto had no issue and he had become very old and he fell in need of money and he has sold the land of his share in khata No. 46 to Machu Mahto for a sum of Rs. 400.00 and executed a sale deed (Ext. 1) in respect thereof on 29.8.1962 in favour of Machu Mahto who kept the said acquired land in his separate possession and had appropriated the income of the said acquired land exclusively. The further case of the defendants -appellant is that at the time of the acquisition of the said land Machu Mahto was separate from the plaintiff -respondent. It is also alleged that, thereafter, defendant -appellant Ayodhya Mahto and Krishna Mahto also separated from Lachu Mahto aforesaid and they were not given any share in the said acquisition made by Lachu Mahto. It is alleged that the said acquisition by Lachu Mahto is his self acquired acquisition from his own earning, by his service working as Khalasi in the Eastern Railway where he was getting Rs. 200.00 per month as salary. It is also alleged that the income from the ancestral land was not even sufficient to meet the cost of the living of the family. The further case of the defendants -appellant is that Machu Mahto out of his own accord and to meet his cost of livelihood sold the suit land purchased by him from Peku Mahto to defendant -appellant Saraswatia Devi and Manmatia Devi for valuable consideration and put them in possession and the said transfer is legal and valid conferring valid title on the transferees aforesaid and they are absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the said sale deed executed in their favour by Lachu Mahto.;