SMT. PARAM JOTA Vs. RAM NACHHATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dated 30.3.1989. For a proper appreciation of the controversy at hand, the following pedigree would be relevant. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_166_LAWS(ALL)7_2017.jpg</IMG>

(2.) The plaintiff Ram Nachhatra filed a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed dated 8.12.1971 executed by Mahadeo in favour of the defendant-appellant no.1, the wife of Shripat, the brother of the plaintiff (who was arrayed as defendant no.2). After framing issues the Trial Court partly allowed the suit and cancelled the sale deed dated 8.12.1971 with regard to plots nos. 64 Aa, 64 Ba and 91 so far as they were owned by the plaintiff but dismissed the suit with regard plot nos. 12, 13 and 62 though they were sold by the very same sale deed. Aggrieved thereof the plaintiff filed First Appeal No. 125 of 1988, while the defendant no.1 Paramjota who is the appellant here filed the First Appeal No. 121 of 1988. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided on 30.3.1989. The First Appellate Court modified the decree of the Trial Court and held that at the time when the sale had taken place i.e. on 8.12.1971, Ram Nachhatra-plaintiff, Shripat-defendant no.2 and their father Mahadeo all were alive, and therefore, Mahadeo along with his sons had 1/3rd share in the property.

(3.) In such circumstances, it was held that Mahadeo could have transferred only 1/3rd of his share to Paramjota who was arrayed as defendant no.1 in the suit.