BHAKTAWAR SINGH Vs. DHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Bhaktawar Singh filed a suit for declaration, possession and rendition of accounts against the defendants, Dhan Singh and others, in the court of District Judge, Chamoli for the following reliefs:

(2.) AS per plaint averments, plaintiff was a contractor and has been doing contract business for a long time. Defendant no. 1 and father of defendants no.2/1 to 2/4 are the brothers of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 3 has been a close friend of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 3 was employed in Revenue Department and served as Kanoongo. The uncle of the plaintiff adopted him in 1942 and gave him all his property. The plaintiff did not get any share in the moveable property, house, cow -shed and self acquired property of his father. After adoption, defendant no. 1 and father of defendants no. 2/1 to 2/4 were separated and they had nothing to do with the property inherited by the plaintiff from his uncle.

(3.) DURING the year 1967, the plaintiff expressed a desire to defendant no. 3 to purchase land at Gopeshwar. He made it clear to the defendant no. 3 that he was not in a position to leave Himachal Pradesh on account of his work. The defendant no. 3 volunteered to undertake the work of purchase of land and he suggested that his name be included in the sale deed as benami, in as much as, by doing so, the mutation will be effected easily, he being an employee of the Revenue Department. The plaintiff had full faith in him. Acting upon his assurance, land measuring 3 nalis and 2 muthis were purchased. The entire consideration was paid by the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3 was a mere benamidar. The plaintiff entrusted the construction of the building to defendant no.3 in the year 1968, but since he failed to raise the construction to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, defendant no. 3 left the same in 1969 after eight rooms on the ground floor were erected. The plaintiff then made a request to defendant no. 1 to take up the work and get the construction of the building done, to which defendant no.1 agreed. Since the plaintiff was not in a position to leave his work at Himachal Pradesh, therefore, defendant no.1 undertook to have constructions raised on behalf of the plaintiff as his agent or attorney. Plaintiff sent funds and building materials from time to time. The entire expenditure was incurred by the plaintiff. The construction of the building was completed in the year 1972.