SRI PATURAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SRI CHANDRADIP SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 7 in a suit for partition of the properties filed by the plaintiff -respondents. The relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants will be better appreciated from the genealogical table given below: - -

(2.) After the suit was filed, defendant nos. 1 to 7 filed a joint written statement. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a petition for amendment of the plaint in which they urged that prior to the filing of the written statement the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55. The plaintiffs enquired into the matter having come to know of this partition suit after filing of the written statement and learnt on enquiry that the defendants in collusion with Kuldip Singh got a Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 filed and obtained a compromise decree in that suit. In that Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55, plaintiff no. 1 was shown to be under the guardianship of Ram Bhagwan Singh, defendant no. 9. The plaintiffs contended that they never compromised the Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 nor did Ram Bhagwan Singh, defendant no. 9 ever remain the guardian of plaintiff no. 1. It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs that after the death of Saryug Singh, his widow Mt. Siya Kuer, plaintiff no. 2 had been the guardian of plaintiff no. 1. Further contention is that no land was ever allotted to the plaintiffs by virtue of a compromise decree in Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 nor were the plaintiffs in separate possession over any land. Plaintiff no. 1 was a minor when the Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 is alleged to have been compromised and this compromise never endured to the benefit of plaintiff no. 1. It is further urged that no guardian effectively represented the interest of plaintiff no. 1 in the title partition suit and the guardian ad litem appointed by the court remained negligent and careless and did not properly look after the interest of the minor and so the decree passed in that Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 was fraudulent and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs' prayer was not only for a decree for partition in respect of their 4 annas share in the properties in suit and but also for a declaration that the compromise decree in Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 is fraudulent and void.

(3.) Defendant nos. 1 to 7 contested the suit in the court below and they contended inter alia that plaintiff no. 2 Siya Kuer is not the widow of Saryug Singh nor is she the mother of plaintiff no. 1; that one Kamla Kuer was the widow of Saryug Singh and she had gone to Prayag on pilgrimage where she died; that after the death of Kamla Kuer, Ram Bhagwan Singh, defendant no. 9 who is the only uncle of plaintiff no. 1 has been looking after his affairs; that the defendants deny that Jamuna Kuer, widow of Kuldip Singh, sold her properties to the branch of Ram Charan Singh; that there was a private partition in the family by which Balgobind Singh, Manogi Singh and Paturan Singh, defendant no. 1 remained joint at one place, while Balchand Singh and Roshan Singh separated and came in possession of their respective shares; that about 5 or 6 years after, there was another partition in family as a result of which Balgobind Singh separated while defendant no. 1 Paturan Singh and Manogi Singh remained joint at one place; that although there had been partition in the family but since the Laggit remained joint, Kuldip Singh filed a Title Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Patna impleading plaintiff no. 1 of the present suit as a defendant under the guardianship of his natural guardian Ram Bhagwan Singh, who is defendant no. 9 in the present suit; that the well -wishers of the parties intervened and got the Title Partition Suit No. 42/7 of 1953/55 compromised on the basis of the previous partition and consequent possession of the parties and a compromise petition dated 16.8.1955 (Ext. A) was filed; that Sri Kamleshwari Prasad, Pleader -guardian ad litem signed the compromise petition on behalf of the minor Chandradip Singh (present plaintiff no. 1); that this compromise decree confirmed the previous partition arrived at between the members of the family; that Manogi Singh, who was joint with these defendants got an attack of heart disease and as he had no issue he executed a deed of relinquishment dated 5.10.1956 in favour of these defendants in order to avoid future trouble; that this deed of relinquishment was signed by Ram Ishwar Singh as Manogi Singh could not put his signature on account of his illness as his hands used to tremble but Manogi Singh had put his thumb impression on this deed; that this deed of relinquishment could not be presented for registration on 5.10.1956 as it had become late; that the condition of Manogi Singh further deteriorated and he died two or three days after and so the deed of relinquishment was registered on the admission of defendant no. 1, Paturan Singh. These defendants came in possession over the entire properties left by Manogi Singh. Kuldip Singh died in Aghan 1366 Fasli leaving behind his widow Jamuna Kuer, defendant no. 10, who sold her properties by virtue of two sale deeds dated 20.2.1959 for Rs. 2,500/ - to these defendants who came in possession over these properties that Jamuna Kuer is also alleged to have sold 17 Kathas of her land by virtue of a sale deed to Sukar Paswan, who is in possession over the same; that after the partition in the family, plaintiff no. 1 and his uncle Ram Bhagwan Singh also sold 12 decimals of land to Jhumak Gope by virtue of a sale deed dated 22.12.1956; that Jhumak Gope in his turn sold the same plot of land to Lakhan Gope. The defendants, therefore, contended that there being no unity of title and unity of possession, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the suit.