SITA SHARAN PRASAD Vs. MANORMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Although at the time of admission of this appeal, by order dated 24.02.1994, two substantial questions of law were framed but the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the substantial question of law with regard to Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not being pressed. However, he has proposed another substantial question of law, as to whether the reversal of finding by the appellate court below is against the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. as it has failed to pass a reasoned judgment assigning its own reasons specially when there is absence of cogent evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to establish the sale deed dated 18.08.1973 Ext.F/1 as evidencing a sham transaction, and has prayed for hearing of this appeal on this substantial question of law also. In view of the judgment, which is going to be passed hereafter, there is no necessity to formulate another substantial question of law and consider the same.

(2.) Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The parties, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their position in the suit.

(3.) The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.1993 passed by Additional District Judge III, Nalanda Biharsharif in T.A.No.53/92 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree passed in T.S.No. 181/1982/02/1992 dated 08.07.1992 by Sub Judge IV, Biharsharif has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.08.1973 is numaisee (showy) document which had not been acted upon. The further relief is for declaration that another sale deed dated 01.10.1974 had not been executed by the plaintiff and is a document void ab initio, and be set aside. Thereafter the plaintiff has also made the prayer for declaration of title over the suit house and recovery of possession.