LACCHAN PURANIK SAHU Vs. FULKUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the suit properties on the footing that they originally belonged to her father one Dayaram. According to the plaintiff, some time after the death of Dayaram in 1948 his widow Mst. Sukhia sold 8.97 acres of occupancy land to Lachan by a registered sale-deed dated 6th February 1950 for a consideration of Rs. 800/-; that there was no legal necessity at all for this sale; that on the same day Mst Sukhia gifted away 9.41 acres of occupancy land to Mst. Ramhulla; and that after the death of Mst. Sukhia in 1950 Mst. Ramhulla took possession of the remaining property left behind by Mst. Sukhia. The appellant Mst. Ramhulla is a niece of the plaintiff being her sister Jodhkunwar's daughter. The plaintiff claimed moveable and immoveable property of Dayaram as the next reversioner after the death of his widow Sukhia.

(2.) The plea of the defendants was that after the death of Dayaram the condition of agricultural property deteriorated and its income fell down; that Sukhia, therefore, needed money to maintain herself and for performing marriage of the appellant Mst. Ramhulla and for purchasing a pair of bullocks; and that for this purpose she had to incur a debt, and the sale in favour of the appellant Lachan was effected in order to pay off this debt and was thus for legal necessity. It was further averred by the defendants that Dayaram desired that his property should go to his second daughter Jodhkunwar and that she should reside with him; that, therefore, he made an offer to the plaintiff that she should forgo her interest in the property on the condition of his purchasing some property for her and her husband; that this offer was accepted by the plaintiff and accordingly she received some property from Dayaram; that having accepted this offer of Dayaram the plaintiff could not now claim any property left by Dayaram; that it was in pursuance of this arrangement made by Dayaram that Sukhia made a gift of the lands in question to Mst. Ramhulla with the full consent and approval of the plaintiff; that on the death of Sukhia, disputes again, arose between the plaintiff and Mst. Ramhula and mediators were called to settle the dispute; that ultimately the dispute was amicably settled and the plaintiff agreed to take half of the occupancy land gifted by Sukhia to Mst. Ramhula and some moveable property in full settlement of her claim on the property of Dayaram; and that according to this settlement the plaintiff could not now lay any claim on the properties in suit.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge, First Class, Raipur, who tried the suit, held that the sale in favour of the appellant Lachan was not supported by any legal necessity; that the arrangement alleged to have been made by Dayaram to benefit the plaintiff and her sister Mst. Jodhkunwar was not proved; that there was a settlement between the parties in regard to the land gifted away by Mst, Sukhia to Mst. Ramhula and some moveable property of Dayaram; and that according to this settlement, which was binding on the parties, half of the gifted land was given in possession of the plaintiff.