SAUNEY MAJHI Vs. DULI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the properties described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint and for a further declaration that the mutation of the suit lands in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is void and that the sale deeds executed by the defendants as per the list given in Schedule 'C' of the plaint are void and inoperative transactions and for recovery of possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff was a minor and has sued through her next friend, the maternal grandfather. The suit was filed by her as an indigent person.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that the suit lands belonged to one Gangu Majhi who died leaving behind his widow, Bhagu Bewa, and the only daughter, Duli Dei and her husband, Barsa Majhi, both predeceased Bhagu Bewa leaving their only son Piru Majhi, their other son Gangu having died during their lifetime. Piru and his wife both died leaving behind the plaintiff as the only heir and she has been brought up by her maternal grandfather. The genealogy of the family as given in the plaint 'A' schedule is reproduced below : Gangu Majhi (I) Bhagu Bewa (wife) Duli Dei (I) daughter = Barsa Majhi (husband) Gangu (II) Piru Duli Dei (II) (Plff.) The plaintiff's further case is that after the death of Gangu (I), his widow Bhagu Bewa and son-in-law Barsa Majhi, who was living in the house of Gangu (I), cultivated all the lands left behind by Gangu (I). After the death of Barsa Majhi, his son Piru cultivated the lands along with his grandmother, Bhagu Bewa. After the death of Bhagu Bewa, Piru alone cultivated the suit lands. The plaintiff claims that after the death of Piru, she was taken by her maternal grandfather, Lawa Majhi, and the suit lands were being cultivated and looked after by Lawa Majhi and also by defendant 5 who is a close relation of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, her peaceful possession was disturbed and she was dispossessed on 25-2-1968 by defendants 1 to 8. Her case is that defendants 1 and 2 have been laying a false claim that their father late Bansing Majhi was the adopted son of Gangu Majhi (I) and got the suit lands mutated in their names stealthily without the knowledge of the plaintiff or her maternal grandfather. It is also alleged that defendants 1 and 2 have effected various transfers in favour of some of the defendants who in their turn have also executed different sale deeds, the details of which have been given in Schedule 'C' of the plaint. Thus, defendants 3 to 8 are the purchasers of portions of the suit lands.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement alleging that as Gangu Majhi (I) and his wife Bhagu Bewa had no male issue, they adopted late Bansing Majhi about 50 years back in accordance with the law and customs of the parties. Their case is that Bansing Majhi remained in the house of Gangu Majhi (I) as his adopted son. They claimed that Duli Dei (I), the daughter of Gangu Majhi (I), was given in marriage to Barsa Majhi and after her marriage, she lived with her husband in village Astapura. Thus, according to defendants 1 and 2, their father Bansing Majhi inherited the suit properties after the death of Gangu Majhi (I) and defendants 1 and 2 stepped into the shoes of their father after his death. They contended that late Duli Dei (I) and her husband Barsa Majhi and their son Piru never stayed in the house of Gangu Majhi (I) and had never possessed the suit lands at any point of time. They have further pleaded that Piru having predeceased Bhagu Bewa, the plaintiff could not have any claim over the lands of late Gangu Majhi (I). Their case is that the mutation of the lands has been allowed after due enquiry in their favour whereafter the villagers of Baidikotha at the instance of defendant 5 combined themselves again defendants 1 and 2 and compelled them to execute a sale deed in favour of defendant 5 in respect of a portion of the land of Gangu Majhi (I). The sale deed was not backed by any consideration for which defendants 1 and 2 did not make over possession to defendant 5 and thereafter defendant 5 has instigated Lawa Majhi to file the suit to harass defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 5 did not file any written statement and was, therefore, set ex parte. Defendants 3, 4, 6 and 7 have filed a joint written statement supporting the stand taken by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 8 has filed a separate written statement in which he has denied to have combined with the other defendants to deprive the plaintiff from her legitimate claim and has stated that defendant No. 5 while taking a loan from him gave a portion of the suit land as security in the capacity of guardian of the plaintiff. But when this defendant came to know that Lawa Majhi was looking after the affairs of the minor plaintiff, defendant 5 cleared up the loan and the sale deed was also, returned to him. This defendant supported the claim of the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff's father Piru became the absolute owner of the suit properties and possessed the same till his death and the plaintiff has been continuing in possession through her maternal grandfather with the assistance of defendant 5.