MAHABIR PANDEY Vs. SASHI BHUSAN DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's case is that the disputed property belonged to one Dwarika Nath Roy, whose name was properly recorded in the C. S. Khatian. He possessed the property all along and died on the 19th May, 1934, leaving his widow Jahnabi, pro forma defendant No. 3, and his mother, Mahamaya alias Parbati. Jahnabi inherited that property as Dwarika's sole heir, She and Parbati lived on the homestead left by Dwarika. Then Jahnabi went away else-where and Mahamaya alias Parbati alone managed the property. The latter breathed her last five years before the filing of the suit. By a registered kobala executed on the 9th Nov., 1962, Jahnabi sold the suit land to the plaintiffs. But the principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not allow them to take possession of the property on the assertion that they had purchased the same from Lakshmibala, who had acquired the same from her mother, Parbati, on the footing of a deed of gift. The land was erroneously recorded in Mahamaya's name in the R. S. Khatian. The suit is for a permanent and mandatory injunction and also for recovery of khas possession on the declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's allegations. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the disputed property belonged to Dwarika's father, Kedar Nath, who left his house in 1930 as a mendicant. So in the C. S. Khatian, the name of Kedar Nath and of his son, Dwarika, was also recorded. Dwarika had no title or possession. After Kedar Nath left his house, his wife Mahamaya possessed the property as Kedar Nath's heir. She hud her name mutated in the landlord's 'sherisla*. She gifted her property to her daughter, Lakshmibala, by a registered document on the 9th March, 1959. The latter in her turn transferred it to them.

(3.) The learned Munsif believed the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit. Defendants went up on appeal and lost the same. Hence this second appeal.