N.N. Tiwari, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff -appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1993 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1993 passed by learned Munsif, Chatra in Title Suit No. 12 of 1984.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs, inter alia, for a decree declaring that the sale -deed dated 12.8.1972 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 and the deed of agreement of reconveyance of the same date is collusive, void, without consideration, inoperative and illegal. The plaintiff had further prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and in case of dispossession, for delivery of possession or alternatively for a decree for redemption of the suit property. The plaintiffs case was that there was amicable family partition in the year 1947 and the suit property was exclusively allotted to defendant No. 2 by virtue of a registered deed of partition. The suit property is a joint property of the defendant No. 2 and his sons. The defendant No. 2 was of luxurious habits. He had incurred heavy debts for meeting his expenses. In order to avoid the creditors and to pay off the creditors and to save the property, the defendant No. 2 executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 2,400/ - and the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement of reconveyance in favour of the defendant No. 2 on the same date. The deed of reconveyance was valid for two years. It was stated that the deed of sale was never given effect to and remained inoperative. The defendant No. 2 subsequently paid up the creditors and then requested the defendant No. 1 to execute the deed of reconveyance of the suit property, but the defendant No. 1 avoided and ultimately refused to do so. Hence the suit was filed.
(3.) THE defendant No. 2 filed written statement supporting the plaintiff.;