PRAHLAD Vs. SHIV NANDAN KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant in a suit for declaration of title and possession is the appellant before us. Respondents 1. 2 and 3 were plaintiffs in the said suit. Respondent 4 was the first defendant and the appellant was the second defendant in the said suit. For convenience, we will refer to the paries, by their ranks in the suit. THE first plaintiff was the step-mother and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the step-brothers of the first defendant. THE first defendant sold field No.47. measuring 5 bigha 18 biswas to the second defendant (appellant) under sale deed dated 17.5.1978. It may be mentioned that at the time of such purchase the second defendant was a minor and represented by his father.

(2.) IN the year 1981. the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession alleging that the suit property (field No.47) was a joint family properly of Raj Bahadur Singh (father of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs 2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 1) and his brother Shiv Bahadur Singh; that there was an oral partition in the year 1968 which was affirmed by reducing it into writing in the form of a family settlement dated 15.2.1970; and that under the said partition field No.47 was allotted to the share of Dharmendra Singh - third plaintiff. It was contended that the first defendant who was allotted a different property at the partition and therefore had no right title or interest in field No.47, sold the said property to the second defendant and consequently the sale by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was null and void.

(3.) THEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed as there is no merit. Appeal dismissed.