SHIV CHARAN DAS Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-3-1965 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts alleged in the plaint were that one Sheel Chand was the owner of the house described in para 1 of the plaint. After his death it devolved on his two sons, namely, Babu Ram and Ram Swarup in equal shares. On the death of Babu Ram his one half share was inherited by his widow, Smt. Kalawati Devi and on the death of Ram Swarup his one half share devolved on his sons Maharaj Kumar and Ratan Kumar. The latter died in 1940 leaving behind his widow Smt. Rukmini Devi who got his 1/4 share. Maharaj Kumar died in or about the year 1943 and his one-fourth share devolved on his widow Smt. Tribeni Devi and three sons namely, Devendra Kumar, Mahendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar. In 1950 Smt. Kalawati filed a suit (No. 64 of 1950) against Devendra Kumar and others for partition of her half share. It was decreed and the final decree separating her share was prepared on 23-1-1954. The remaining one half share remained with Smt. Rukmini Devi, Smt. Tribeni Devi and her three sons. Smt. Tribeni Devi and her three sons sold their one fourth share in this house to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,500.00 by means of a sale deed dated 15-2-1954 (Ex. 1). On the same day the vendors took this portion on rent and executed a rent note in plaintiff's favour. On 7-4-1958 the vendors vacated it and put the plaintiff in possession of it. Smt. Kalawati's heirs did not relish it and got proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. initiated against him with a view to oust him from the house. These proceedings terminated against the plaintiff and the revision application filed against it was also dismissed on 23-7- 1959. According to the plaintiff he was ousted from a portion of his share. Hence that suit for partition of his one fourth share and for possession thereon. Originally the suit was filed against Smt. Rukmini Devi alone but during the pendency of the suit she transferred her share to Smt. Ram Dulari, daughter of Babu Ram. Therefore, Smt. Ram Dulari was also impleaded as defendant No. 2.

(3.) AT first Smt. Ram Dulari gave out that she would adopt the written statement of Smt. Rukmini Devi but later on she filed a written statement which was rejected by the learned trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court rejected all the pleas raised by the defendants except that the application under Section 73 (1) of the Registration Act was presented beyond the prescribed period of thirty days and the District Registrar had no jurisdiction to direct registration of the sale deed. In his opinion the document was not validly registered and did not transfer any interest in the property to the plaintiff. Accordingly the suit was dismissed with costs on parties.