JAMUNA PANDEY Vs. BANSDEO PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the first respondent for the cancellation of a sale-deed, dated 22nd October, 1946, executed by Srimati Surja defendant No. 2, in favour of Jamuna defendant No. 1, in respect of a house and for possession over the same.

(2.) In order to appreciate the facts of this case a short pedigree of the parties would be found very helpful. One Sahsa Pandcy died leaving two sons, Gopal and Bhagirathi. Gooal had two sons, Ori Pandey and Swarup. Ori Pandey had no issue while Swarup had a son, Adhin, who was married to Srimati Smja, defendant No. 2 to this suit. Ori and Swarup and his son Adhin constituted a joint Hindu family and the house in suit belonged to the said joint Hindu family. Swarup died first and then Adhin died on 15th of July, 1927, leaving his widow Smt. Surja. On the death of Adhin, Ori became the sole surviving coparcener of the joint Hindu family, Smt. Surja however continued to live in the house in questjon as a widow of a pre-deceased coparcener of the said joint Hindu family, and this she continued to do even after the death of Ori in or about 1931. On 22nd October, 1946 she executed the sale-deed in question in respect of the said house in favour of Jamuna Pandey, the first defendant to this suit. The plaintiff who is the great grandson of Bhagirathi, a brother of Gopal, father of Ori and Swarup, and admittedly the nearest reversioner to Ori, thereupon brought the suit which has given rise to the aforesaid second appeal for the reliefs already stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) The defence of the vendee, Jamuna Prasad, defendant No. 1, who alone was interested in contesting this suit was that the house in suit was the exclusive property of Ori and that Smt. Surja by continuing to occupy it without any right Or title for more than the statutory period of 12 years after the death of Ori, had acquired full rights of ownership of the said house by prescription as against the nearest reversioner of Ori, that is to say, the plaintiff. As such it was pleaded that she had full rights to transfer the said house to defendant No. 1.