CHAINSINGH Vs. RAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant has come up in second appeal aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below directing a suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent preventive injunction filed by the Plaintiff/Respondents No. 1 to 4 to be decreed against him. Late Jagannath Khati was a party to the proceedings impleaded as Defendant No, 2 before the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court he expired. His legal representatives are none else than the four Plaintiff/Respondents and hence on his death his name has been deleted from record before the lower appellate Court. The four Plaintiff/Respondents No. 1 to 4 are the sons of late Jagannath The suit property consists of certain pieces of agricultural land and right to take water from a well. In the revenue papers, it was late Jagannath who was recorded as Bhumiswami. The sale -deed recites receipt of consideration and delivery of possession to the purchaser Chainsingh, the Defendant No. 1 and the Appellant before this Court. The Plaintiff/Respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent preventive in junction alleging that the suit property was a coparcenary property of the Plaintiffs and their father Jagannath, the Defendant No. 2 Jagannath could not have alienated the property except for legal necessity and/or benefit of estate. The sale -deed dated 24 -6 -1971 was also alleged to be not a genuine one inasmuch is neither (be recited consideration was paid to vendor nor possession was delivered to the purchaser. It was further alleged that the Defendant/Appellant bad attempted at dispossessing the Plaintiff/Respondents. Hence, the suit.

(2.) AS could be expected, Jagannath the Defendant No 1, admitted the claim filed by the Plaintiffs. The purchaser contested the suit denying all the material plaint -averments and further alleging that Jagannath was entitled to alienate the land in the manner in which he did. The sale was alleged to be genuine whereunder the recited consideration was paid and possession was delivered to the purchaser. It was further alleged that the Plaintiff/Respondents having obtained an interim injunction from the Courts, had dispossessed the Defendant/Appellant during the pendency of the suit by taking shelter behind the interim injunction.

(3.) AS already noticed, the Courts below have decreed the suit holding that the suit property was a co -parcenary property incapable of being alienated by late Jagannath alone beyond his own interest. The sale has been held to be genuine though the possession there under was not found to be delivered to the purchaser. In short the Courts below have held that the sale would have the effect of transferring the title of Jagannath alone to the purchaser but not the right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs claimed by them by virtue of the suit property being a coparcenary property.