RAJA JAGAT RANVIR MAHESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. BAQRIDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh pray ing for the cancellation of a sale-deed dated 5-1-1960 executed by respondents Nos. 9 to 11 in favour of one Abdul Rahman who was predecessor of the defendants-respon dents Nos. 1 to 8 and for possession over the said house after their ejectment.

(2.) THIS house admittedly belonged to Raja Jagatpal Bahadur Singh, a Taluqdar of Kaithola Estate. He executed a deed dated 29-5-1935 in favour of his wife Rani Dharam Raj Kuer respondent No. 9 in res pect of this house and some other property. According to the plaintiff under this deed Rani Dharam Raj Kuer was granted a herit able but non-transferable lease so far as the house in dispute is concerned and as such under the terms of this grant she could only remain in possession of the house but could not make any temporary or perma nent transfer thereof. The Raja died on 9-9-1949. Before that he had adopted the plain tiff-appellant Raja Jagat Ranvir Mahesh Prasad Singh as his son and had also exe cuted a will in his favour. Hence both as an adopted son and as a legatee he was owner of the interest reserved by the Raja in the said house under the deed dated 29-5-1935. Smt. Bimlawati Kumari Devi respondent No. 10 is the daughter of Rani Dharam Raj Kuer and the Raja while respondent No. 11 is their daughter's son. After the death of Rani Dharam Raj Kuer, Smt. Bimlawati Kumari Devi would inherit her property if she survives her. The respondents Nos. 10 and 11 had also joined respondent No. 9 in execution of the impugned sale deed. The plaintiff's contention was that by making this unauthorised transfer the lessee lost her leasehold rights and the plaintiff be came entitled to get immediate possession over the property which he had sought as an alternative relief in his plaint beside claiming a decree for adjudging the sale-deed as void.

(3.) THE trial Court repelled these pleas of the defendants. It found that the plaintiff had been adopted by the Raja and the will executed in his favour by the Raja covered this house also. The transaction evidenced by the document dated 29-5-1935 was a lease and not an absolute gift and that the condition prohibiting the lessee from transferring this property was a valid con dition which was for the benefit of the lessor. As such the sale-deed executed by the lessee in favour of Abdul Rahman was void. The trial Court therefore granted a decree to the plaintiff for a declaration that the aforesaid sale-deed was void against him and also for possession after ejectment of the defendants.