Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2003 and 20.02.2003 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2002/109 of 2002 whereby the 6th Addl. District Judge, Giridih allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001 and 07.01.2002 respectively whereby Title Suit No. 63/97 was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Giridih.
(2.) This original suit i.e. Title Suit No. 63 of 1997 was instituted by plaintiffs, namely, Nirpat Mahto, Bhikho Mahto, Karman Mahto and Sukhdeo Mahto who are respondent No. 1 to 4 herein. Bhikho Mahto died pendente lite and is substituted by his legal representatives. Original defendant No. 1 -Bhola Mahto is the appellant herein. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Bibi Madina Khatoon and Bibi Jahira Khatoon were proforma defendants and are respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. Bibi Zahira Khatoon died pendente lite and is substituted by her legal representatives. Brief facts of the case is that the suit property of plot No. 270, Khata No. 13 was recorded in the name of Gulab Miyan who was survived by two sons, namely, Imamuddin and Rahmat Ali. Each inherited half a share in the said property. Imamuddin transferred his half share in the name of his wife -Bibi Rafidan in lieu of dower. Likewise, Rahmat Ali, plaintiff's son, transferred his half share in the name of Bibi Zahira, his daughter -in -law. Both the transfers were made by the registered deed in the yar 1944 and 1954 respectively. It is claimed that the plaintiff purchased the interest of Bibi Zahira through registered sale deed and Bibi Rafidan also transferred her interest in plot No. 270 in favour of her daughter -Bibi Madina. The interest of Bibi Madina, transferee of Bibi Rafidan, is claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiffs in the year 1997. It is alleged that when the plaintiff tried to erect a fence over the entire purchased land the defendant No. 1 obstructed to the construction. It is alleged that the defendant claimed title over the suit property on the basis of a bogus document. Consequent thereto, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property.
(3.) Defendant No. 1 - Bhola Mahto, the present appellant, contested the suit claiming that Bibi Rafidan had transferred her entire interest in Plot No. 270, Khata No. 13 through registered sale deed dated 11.11.1954 in the name of Bharat Narayan Lal, therefore she did not have any right or authority to transfer any portion of land of Plot No. 270. Accordingly, the alleged sale deed of the year 1966 executed by Bibi Rafidan in favour of her daughter is a nullity in the eye of law. The defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased the entire interest of Bibi Rafidan in Plot No. 270 through registered sale deed from the heirs of Bharat Narayan Lal.;