DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH (D) THROUGH L RS KISHORE KUMARI & ANR Vs. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 19-01-2000 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri whereby the suit preferred by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for declaration, title and restoration of possession against the defendant/appellant in respect of a Kothi situate at village Mandpura Tahsil Vijaypur District Shivpuri on the allegations that the property comprised in survey numbers as described in the plaint was duly purchased by the plaintiff in Rs.70,000/- on 10-03-1976 in an auction proceedings of case No.123/1985 pending before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies at Shivpuri. Further allegations are that plaintiff is in possession of its property from the date of purchase which comprised a Kothi and other house on these survey numbers along with land comprised in the said survey number were sold by Rao Madho Singh to Adarsh Sahkari Beej Bhandar Samiti vide sale deed dated 06-02- 1956 for a consideration of Rs.9,500/-. It appears that the said society could not repay the loan amount, therefore, in pursuance of the decree of plaintiff/Bank for Rs.7,000/- said property was auctioned by Tahsildar Sheopur in favour of the Bank and the same was mutated in its favour on 10-09-1976. As per the allegations, defendant sold out certain plots out of aforesaid land and when Branch Manager of the plaintiff found on 15-05-1986 that locks of the bank were broken and defendant has forcibly taken possession of the disputed property then police report was lodged and suit for declaration of title, restoration of possession and title of Kothi was filed.

(3.) Appellant/Defendant (through legal representatives) submitted his written statement and denied claim of the plaintiff. According to appellant, Rao Madho Singh neither had title nor possession over disputed Kothi as his ancestral property. Disputed property was a Jajor property and Rao Madho Singh was the first Jagirdar of the defendant's family. Through pedigree, defendant asserted that the disputed property belongs to ancestor of defendant from the time of Rao Padam Singh Ji. From the pedigree, it is demonstrated that Rao Jagatrai Singh died issue less and after his death his widow Badi Rani Munniraja adopted Sohan Singh in the year 1938 when Sohan Singh was already married and aged 32 years. He was also having one 8 years old son Madho Singh at the time of adoption. Due to the fact that Madho Singh had already born before adoption of his father (Sohan Singh), therefore, Madho Singh had no right of inheritance in the adoptive family of Sohan Singh. Sohan Singh's natural father was Diwan Khalak Singh who went into adoption, out of the family to Lohkhari dynasty. Madho Singh was born to Sohan Singh and his wife at the time when Sohan Singh was a member of Lohkhari family and had merely a right of inheritance in the family of Diwan Khalak Singh not in the family of Badi Rani Munniraja and her adopted son Sohan Singh. Madho Singh was born before adoption of Sohan Singh in the family of defendant and therefore, Madho Singh did not get any right, title to the defendant's family. Sohan Singh died issue less, therefore, the property of Sohan Singh devolved through survivorship to the defendant and Madho Singh had no right, title or interest, therefore, the sale deed dated 11-02-1956 executed by Madho Singh in favour of Adarsh Sahkari Beej Bhandar Samiti is illegal, null and void as Madho Singh was legally incompetent to convey any kind of interest in the disputed property for want of title with the vendor. Therefore, vendee - Adarsh Sahkari Beej Bhandar Samiti did not acquire any title in respect of disputed property and same was not liable to be auctioned in pursuance to the alleged recovery against the said Samiti, therefore, entire auction proceedings stand vitiated.