JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. MUNSHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for caveator respondent No. 3 at the admission stage. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 138 of 1998. which was filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 29.1.1998 executed by Munshi Lal defendant respondent No. 1 since deceased in favour of defendant respondent No. 3, Vimal Narain Mehrotra. Plaintiff appellant Jagdish Prasad is son of Munshi Lal and defendant respondent No. 2, Anand Prakash is also son of Munshi Lal. Both Munshi Lal and Anand Prakash denied the appellant's allegations and supported the sale deed and the case of defendant respondent No. 3. Civil Judge. Senior Division. Kannauj through judgment and decree dated 24.12.2010 dismissed the suit. Jagdish Prasad appellant had got filed another suit being O.S. No. 50 of 2005 by his four sons and in that suit he was one of the defendants. Both the suits were consolidated and dismissed by common judgment. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 138 of 1998 plaintiff appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2011, which has been dismissed by A.D.J. Court No. 1. Kannauj through Judgment and decree dated 15.11.2011. hence this second appeal. It is not clear as to whether any appeal was filed against the decree of the trial court passed in the other suit, i.e. O.S. No. 50 of 2005.

(2.) The ground taken in the plaint for cancellation of the sale deed was that as Mushi Lal had purchased the property through sale deed dated 25.5.1960 executed by Shyama Charan from joint Hindu Family fund hence it was joint Hindu Family and Munshi Lal did not have full ownership of the same. The courts below after examination of the entire evidence on record particularly the own oral statement of plaintiff appellant held that property in dispute was self acquired property of Munshi Lal. Appellant had admitted that his father Munshi Lal was goldsmith and he was the sole owner of the said business. He further admitted that Munshi Lal purchased the property from his own income from the business of goldsmith. He simply stated that in the purchase his grandfather had also contributed. I do not find least error in the findings of the courts below. Property in dispute was rightly held to be exclusive property of Munshi Lal and not joint Hindu Family property.

(3.) The argument that oral statements of the witnesses of the parties particularly of the defendants have not properly been evaluated is not acceptable.