JAGANNATH Vs. NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit of the usual character to set aside a sale of joint family property by one Mathura Prasad, from whom the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are descended, as shown in the following pedigree: Mathura Prasad (died 1918).: : : : Basdeo Sidh Narain Ram Pratap(deft. No. 4)(died 1895). (died 1919). (died1931) : : : : : 3 sons (pltfs. 9, 10 and 11). : : : ______________________ : : : : Batuk Raghu Nath : (pltf. No. 7). (pltf. No. 8). : : : : Bisheshar Nath Bhairon Nath Shri Nath (died 1905). (dft. No. 5). (pltf. No. 1).: : _____________________________________ : : : : : Jagtamba Suba Lal Ramanand Satdeo Gayetri Prasad (pltf. No. 6).(pltf. No. 2). (pltf. No. 3). (pltf. No. 4). Prasad (pltf. No. 5).

(2.) IT was alleged in the plaint that Jagannath, the first defendant, had induced Mathura Prasad, who was blind and deaf and a very old man, to execute a sale-deed in his favour on September 13, 1910, of zemindari property belonging to the joint family, and worth about Rs. 10,000, without any lawful necessity, for an inadequate consideration of Rs. 6,000, which was in great part fictitious. IT was also alleged that he had cleverly induced defendants Nos. 4 and 5, Ram Pratap, one of Mathura's sons, and Bhairon Nath, one of his grandsons, to witness the sale-deed by tempting and misleading them.

(3.) JAGTAMBA also deposed that Mathura was blind and deaf for some years before the execution of the sale-deed. In cross-examination he stated that Mathura's sons, Sidh Narain, who, according to the plaint pedigree, was thirty-eight at the date of the sale, Ram Pratap, who was thirty-six and his grandson, Bhairon Nath, who was twenty-six, had never made any attempt to get back the property. He himself had instituted this suit within a year of his beginning to practise as a mukhtar, but could not say why Ram Pratap and Bhairon Nath, who were the eldest members of the family, had not joined as plaintiffs, as he had never asked them. Nor could he say how they were induced and tempted to witness the sale-deed, as alleged in the plaint. He had inquired, but had been told it was a secret.