PRAKASH SINGH Vs. MADHUSUDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for possession over a bungalow situated in sitapur and for some other reliefs. The facts are a little complicated but briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) THE plaintiffs are the grandsons of Raja Sripal Singh, a Taluqdar of Tikra Basaidih. In the year 1911 Raja Sripal Singh purchased a bungalow called Churamau Bungalow in Sitapur. The sale deed was however executed in the name of Rajendra Singh, son of Raja Sripal Singh and lather of the plaintiffs-appellants. Raja Sripal Singh was declared a ward of the Court sometime in 1925. Raja Sripal died in October 1930. On 1-10-1930 Rajendra Singh, his son, applied under section 10, U. P. Court of Wards Act that his property be taken under the superintendence of the court of Wards. On 31-10-1931 the Court of Wards made a declaration to that effect, and actually took over the property under their superintendence, but left the bungalow in dispute in possession of Rajendra Singh as he used to reside therein. On 14-2-1938 Kunwar Rajendra Singh sold the bungalow in dispute to Pt. Madhusudan, defendant-respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 10500/ -. Kunwar Rajendra Singh died on 7-11-1939, and after his death his property was retained by the Court of Wards under their superintendence under Section 45 of the Act. In 1940 a grandson of Rajendra Singh, namely Ajai prakash Singh, son of Kunwar Sri Prakash Singh, plaintiff-appellant No. 1, filed a suit under the guardianship of his mother for possession over the bungalow in dispute on the ground that the sale-deed was void having been executed by Kunwar Rajendra Singh while he was a ward of the court and thus incompetent to transfer any property. The Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur, the manager of the Court of Wards, applied for being impleaded as a party to the suit. The application was granted and he was impleaded as a co-plaintiff in the suit. Thereafter on 5-4-1941 a notification was issued under Section 10, Court of Wards Act in respect of the property of Ajai Prakash Singh and his brothers, defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6. The result of this notification was that Ajai Prakash Singh and his brothers lost their right of suit which now vested in the Court of Wards. The present plaintiff-appellants who had been impleaded as defendants in that suit and who had not put in any appearance before then came forward and applied that they may be allowed to continue the suit as plaintiffs. This was, however, not allowed and the suit was ultimately withdrawn. Then they brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal on 8-1-1946 for the reliefs already stated.

(3.) THE case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint was two-fold. According to them, in the first place, the property was the joint Hindu family property of Rajendra Singh and his sons and grandsons. They alleged that Raja Sripal Singh, their grandfather, had purchased this property in the name of Rajendra Singh and after Raja Sripal singh's death the property became ancestral in the hands of Rajendra Singh and was coparcenary property and as such Rajendra Singh could not transfer it except for legal necessity. They alleged that there was no legal necessity for the sale made by Rajendar Singh in favour of Pandit Madhusudan, defendant-respondent No. 1. In the second place, they urged that even if the property was separate property of Rajendra singh, it was under the management of the Court of Wards and Rajendra Singh being a ward was not capable of transferring the property, and that the transfer was, therefore, void. They alleged that afterwards the Manager of the Court of Wards who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the case and is now respondent No. 2 in the appeal, was attempting to rectify the transaction by executing a fresh sale-deed on behalf of the Court of Wards in favour of defendant-respondent no. 1. They prayed for an injunction to be issued against him forbidding him from taking this step. To the suit certain other defendants were also impleaded. These were defendants 7 to 20 and were transferees of the property in dispute from defendant-respondent No. 1. It also appears that after the purchase of 1938, defendant-respondent No. 1 had acquired free-hold rights in the site of the bungalow which was at the time of the sale a lease-hold property. The plaintiffs offered to pay the amount incurred by the defendant-respondent No. 1 in acquiring the free-hold rights in the site of the bungalow.