JHAKRI TEWARI Vs. DEBI SARAN UPADHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain properties set out in the plaint.

(2.) One Ayodhya Prasad was the owner of certain zamindari property. He died leaving his widow Mst. Bachha and his heir and a daughter Mst. Chhotka. After Ayodhya Prasad's death Mst. Bachha succeeded to his assets and after Mst. Bachha's death Ayodhya Prasad's daughter came to be in possession over the properties left by him. Mst. Chhotka had a son Debi Saran, the present Plaintiff. On the 26th September, 1930, was executed a sale-deed for Rs. 250/- in respect of certain properties by Mst. Chhotka and Debi Saran. Mst. Chhotka died on the 5th January, 1945, and after her death the Plaintiff brought a suit to recover possession of the property to which he had become entitled as the daughter's son of Ayodhya on the ground that the sale-deed mentioned above was a transfer of the life estate of Mst. Chhotka deceased and as at that time the Plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the property, the execution of the sale-deed by him. conveyed no right, title or interest in the property to the vendee and now that the reversion had opened on Mst. Chhotka's death, he became entided to the property and brought this suit to recover possession as the sale by her was not binding on him. It was also urged in the plaint that the sale-deed had been executed under undue influence" and without consideration, and that the Plaintiff was a minor at the time when the document was executed. It was also pleaded that at the time of the sale the Plaintiff had at best only a chance of succession which was not transferred according to Section 6-A of the Transfer of Properly Act and the sale was, therefore, entirely illegal.

(3.) The suit was contested on various grounds. It was urged that the Plaintiff was not a minor at the time when he executed the document, that the sale was not bad because of undue influence, that full consideration had been paid for it, that the Plaintiff was estopped from challenging the sale and that the suit was barred by limitation.