SUDARSHAN PRASAD Vs. RADHA KISHUN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two Second appeals arising from the decree dismissing the two Suits 15 of 1967 and 99 of 1970 of the court of the Civil Judge, Ballia. The plaintiffs in the two suits are different from each other, but they belong to the same family. The relief claimed in both the suits was the same, namely, the cancellation and setting aside of a sale -deed dated 1st September, 1943. The two suits were heard and dismissed by the same Judge, but by separate judgments dated 25th Jan. 1972 in Suit 15 of 1967 and dated 29th Jan. 1972 in Suit 99 of 1970. The first appeals from the two decrees of dismissal of the two suits were Civil Appeals 7 and 8 of 1972 in the District Court. They were consolidated, heard and dismissed by a common Judgment of the court of the District Judge, Ballia.

(2.) IT would be convenient to have before us the family tree of the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendant -respondents in both the suits.

(3.) THE first two defendants in both the suits were. (1) Radha Kishun Ram and (2) Dina Nath Ram sons of Ganesh Ram the transferees under the impugned sale -deed. The pro forma defendants originally were seriatim (3) Harihar Ram son of Jhingur Ram (4) Hari Ram, and (5) Nand Ram Lal sons of Anant Ram (6) Bhrigu Nath Prasad son of Radha Kishan (7) Balbhadra Prasad son of Nand Lal Ram, who died during the pendency of the suit and his name was accordingly struck off (8) renumbered as (7) Surendra Prasad son of Hare Ram; (9) renumbered as (8) Shri Kishun Prasad son of Ram Subhag Ram (10) renumbered as (11) Dhodha Prasad son of Jhingur Ram (11) renumbered as (10) Gauri Shanker Prasad son of Harihar Ram, Babban Prasad son of Nand Lal and Chatthu Prasad son of Harihar Ram were added as defendants 11 and 12 subsequently. In the other Suit 99 of 1970, the plaintiffs were seriatim (1) Babban Prasad son of Nand Ram (2) Chhathu Prasad and (3) Vir Prasad sons of Harihar Prasad and (4) Shatrughan prasad son of Dhodha. The first two defendants were the same Radha Kishun and Dina Nath sons of Ganesh Ram. The pro forma defendants were seriatim (3) Harihar Ram son of Jhingur Ram (4) Hare Ram and (5) Nand Lal sons of Anant Ram, (6) Bhrigu Nath prasad son of Radha Kishun Prasad (7) Shri Kishun Prasad son of Subhag Ram (8) Dhodha Prasad son of Jhingur Prasad (9) Gauri Shanker Prasad son of Harihar; (10) Sudarshan prasad son of Nand Lal (11) Ram Mohan son of Subhag (12) Rama Shanker Prasad son of Dhodha (13) Bharat Prasad and (14) Shanker Dayal sons of Dhodha and (15) Sheo Shanker Prasad son of Harihar. It would thus appear that the pro forma defendants 3 to 10 in Suit 15 of 1967 except for pro forma defendant Surendra Prasad are the pro forma defendants 3 to 9 in suit 99 of 1970. The plaintiffs of suit 15 of 1967 are the pro forma defendants 10 to 15 of suit 99 of 1970. Of the four plaintiffs in suit 99 of 1970, the first two Balbhadra Prasad and Chhattu Prasad are pro forma defendants 11 and 12 in suit 15 of 1967. Vir prasad son of Harihar Prasad and Shatrughan Prasad son of Dhodha, plaintiffs 3 and 4 in suit No. 99 of 1970 are not parties to the other suit and as already noticed above, Surendra son of Hare Ram, originally defendant 8 but renumbered as defendant 7 of suit 15 of 1967 (respondent 12 in second appeal 291 of 1971) is not a party to suit 99 of 1970 however, these variations are inconsequential.