MAHADEV PRASAD UMADUTT Vs. MUNNIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 25.3.1987 of Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/84. This judgment confirms the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1984 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class I, Sagar in civil suit No. 238-A/83.

(2.) THE trial Court had decreed the suit of Munnibai (she being plaintiff No. 2 originally and being substituted as legal representative of her mother Janakdulari plaintiff No. 1 due to her death during the pendency of the suit) holding that Munnibai was owner of the disputed lands to the extent of half portion in spite of the sale-deed Ex.P-5 dated 1.5.1957 by Pyarelal PW-2 in favour of Janakdulari, mother of Munnibai, and further that the sale-deed Ex. D-1 dated 4.8.1973 executed by Janakdulari in respect of suit land in favour of appellants 2 and 3 under the guardianship of their father appellant No. 1 Mahadev, was, in fact, not a sale-deed, but loan transaction of Rs. 4,000/- taken by Janakdulari from Mahadev and the sale-deed was executed just as a security and the property of Janakdulari was to be reconveyed to her on return of Rs. 4,000/- loan to the defendants and possession was given to the defendants to cover the interest on the loan. A decree was passed that even though sale-deed was in favour of Janakdulari, since agreement to sale was entered into by Rameshwar, the father of Munnibai and husband of Janakdulari (and Rameshwar died by execution of a death warrant against him some days before the sale-deed) Munni as daughter of Rameshwar is to be considered as owner of 1/2 and Janakdulari of the other half. So the transfer by Janakdulari in favour of defendants could apply only to her 1/2 share and not to half share of Munni. A decree was thus passed that on payment of Rs. 4,000/- by Munnibai who is legal representative of Janakdulari, being her daughter, a reconveyance should be executed by the appellants/defendants in favour of Munnibai about half of the property and also being owner of the other half, possession of entire land should be delivered to the plaintiff. This judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court in its judgment and decree.

(3.) THREE sets of written statements were filed by the defendants. A joint written statement by defendants 1 to 2 who were then majors. A separate written statement by defendant No. 4 Govindmurari through guardian-ad-litem S.K. Tamrakar. Advocate, was filed and a separate written statement was filed by this defendant when he became major i.e., 18.1.1983. Mahadev father of other defendants filed a separate written statement. Mahadev admitted that Janakdulari was widow of his brother-in-law (sala). He however denied agreement of sale by Pyarelal in favour of Rameshwar and urged that sale consideration of Rs. 800/- paid to Pyarelal was so paid that Rs. 400/- were paid by Janakdulari and Rs. 400/- by Bhagwatibai wife of Mahadev and in lieu of interest Pyarelal had given possession of the land. The death of Rameshwar in execution of a death warrant was not contested. It was denied that the transaction between the defendants and Janakdulari was a loan transaction or that he had agreed to reconvey the land to Janakdulari on payment of Rs. 4,000/-. She was having independent consultancy and was not under influence of Mahadev. Proper market price was paid for the land which was uncultivated and was lying fallow. It was not useful to her and she could not look after it. She executed the sale-deed after consulting her brother Durgaprasad. The other respondents' plea was paralled to that of Mahadev. They had denied that sale consideration was paid by deceased Rameshwar to Pyarelal.