MST. UMRAI Vs. RAM NIRANJAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants second appeal. The relevant facts which have given rise to the present appeal are as follows: One Mahadeo Singh was the owner in possession of the property in suit described at the foot of the plaint which consists of agricultural plots. On 1st March 1948 the property was gifted to Shambhu Singh by means of a registered gift deed. Shambhu Singh is the son-in-law of Mahadeo Singh, After the abolition of zamindari in the year 1951 Shambhu Singh became the bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. On 9-9-1960 Shambhu Singh executed a sale deed in favour of Lal Behari Singh and Bodhan Singh. Lal Behari Singh was the original plaintiff. Bodhan Singh was defendant No. 4 in the suit. Lal Behari Singh died during the pendency of the suit and in his place Ram Niranjan, son of Lal Behari Singh, was substituted.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff respondent was that after the execution of the sale deed dated 9th Sept. 1960 the vendees were put in possession of the disputed property and since then they are Bhumidhars in possession of the property. It was further alleged that Smt. Umrai, who was the appellant before this Court, (who died during the pendency of this appeal in this Court and Fateh Bahadur Singh has been substituted in her place) was the widow of Mahadeo Singh. She in collusion with Shambhu Singh, the vendor, instituted Suit No. 87 of 1961 under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act against the vendees and obtained a decree dated 6-12-1961 in her favour. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining Smt. Umarai and Shambhu Singh from interfering with the plaintiff respondents possession of the disputed plots, as Smt. Umrai and Shambhu Singh intended to take unlawful possession of the property by virtue of the decree having been obtained by them under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellate Smt. Umrai. She alleged that Mahadeo Singh was in possession of the disputed plots during his lifetime and after his death she succeeded as his widow and entered into possession. It was further alleged that Shambhu Singh nor the vendees of Shambhu Singh had any concern with these plots and that since she was forcibly dispossessed by vendees she was compelled to file the suit under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The validity of the gift deed dated 1st March 1948 in favour of Shambhu Singh was also challenged on the ground that it was void because it was a fraud on registration.