BHONU ALIAS NIZAMUDDIN Vs. NANKULLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1980 dated 24-3-93, whereby the decree of the trial Court in Original Suit No. 344 of 1979 was confirmed.

(2.) The suit in question was brought by Savitri and Nankulli against Bhonu and three others for a direction upon the defendants forbiding them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs on the suit property. It was stated that Savitri was a daughter of Munai (defendant No. 2) and Nankulliwas her husband. Savitri and Nankulli were married more than twenty years prior to the institution of the suit. They had no house to live in. A vacant land of Maheshwar Gir was lying close to the house of Munai and the daughter made a prayer to the father that arrangement be made for settlement of that plot in her favour so that a house be made thereon and her husband might build their residential house thereon. Accordingly, defendant No. 2 arranged for settlement of a land measuring 45 feet x 20 feet in favour of Savitri and Nankulli from the owner Maheshwar Gir and they were put in possession. The plaintiff constructed a room thereon and used the rest of the land as angan and started living there about 20 years prior to the institution of the suit. Unfortunately, since some time past Munai, Rajaram, Satya Narain and the plaintiff had a bad blood between them and Munai and others wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property. When they failed in that attempt a forged and fake sale deed was made in favour of the defendant No. 1 so that Bhonu may be able to take forcible possession of the suit property. With this end in view defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a conspiracy and made a prayer before the police on 15-10-1979 and the plaintiffs were afraid that they may be thrown cut with police help. This led to the filing of the suit.

(3.) Two sets of defence came forward, one from Bhonu and the other from the rest of the defendants. All of them denied the averments of the plaintiff. It was stated that Nankulli was from another village and he used to live in his ancestral village only and has no concern with the suit property. The plaintiffs were never in possession thereof. It was stated that the suit property was part of the house of the defendant No. 2, wherein the family was living for about 100 years, since the time of the ancestors. To the west of this house Maheshwar Gir had no vacant land nor was any such vacant land settled by Maheshwar Gir in favour of the plaintiffs. The sale to Bhonu was made to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and it was a sale for a good consideration and possession was made over after the sale to Bhonu. The plaintiffs had no right, title and interest over the suit property and had no right to sue. They are not in possession thereof and the suit was bad under Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act.