SEVAK NAYAK Vs. RAMKRUSHNA MOLLANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of their suit for recovery of 22.80 acres of land in dispute with mesne profits from defendants 1 to 8. The scope of the appeal has been very much narrowed down due to the developments after filing of the suit and therefore only the facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated hereinbelow. The genealogy of the plaintiffs' family and of the defendants' family which is not disputed is as follows: Originally, there were two plaintiffs, namely, Sebak (plaintiff No. 1) and his son Pratap (plaintiff No. 2). This Sebak had 5 sons of whom plaintiff No. 2 was the youngest. His other four sons were arraigned as defendants 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively. Plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 are the grandsons of plaintiff No. 1 through his first two sons. Plaintiff No. 1 alleged that his first two sons (defendants 9 and 10) acted against the interest of their minor sons (plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5). By now, plaintiffs Nos. 3, 4 and 5, sons of defendants 9 and 10 have become major and they have backed out. Defendants Nos. 11 and 12, the third and the fourth sons of the plaintiff respectively supported the defence case. Now the plaintiff No. 1 is dead. So the sole plaintiff left in the field is plaintiff No. 2, the last and the fifth son of plaintiff No. 1.

(2.) In short, the plaint case was that the plaintiff No. 1, to meet certain legal necessity of the family, borrowed different sums of money from defendant No. 8 who is a close relation of his. There were some differences over settlement of accounts and finally on 29-4-1963 it was agreed that the plaintiffs' family would sell their lands to the creditor measuring 22.80 acres for a sum of Rs. 50,000. Accordingly, a sale deed (Ext. N) was registered on 29-4-1963 in favour of defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 but in that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 did not join. But the next day, that is, 30-4-1963 these two plaintiffs executed a registered Swikar Patra (Ext. 4) acknowledging the sale. The plaintiffs' case is that Ext. 4 is a fraudulent deed as they were persuaded to execute the same by defendants 6 and 7 (sons-in-law of plaintiff No. 1) on promise to pay him Rs. 10,000 within 10 days hence; but this is denied by the defendants. But as the promised amount was not paid, plaintiff No. 1 sent a registered letter on 7-6-1963 (Ext. 5) to defendants 6 and 7 demanding payment of the amount within one week of receipt of the letter failing which he would go to the Court for getting the sale deed as well as the acknowledgment deed cancelled. Defendant No. 8 filed a complaint case under S. 500, I.P.C. for that but plaintiff No. 1 was acquitted therein on 9-3-l965.

(3.) The contentions on behalf of the plaintiffs were that the sale deed dated 29-4-1963 (Ext. N) is invalid and not binding on them as the same was not supported by legal necessity and that the Swikar Patra dated 30-4-1963 (Ext. 4) is fraudulent, illegal and void and therefore no title passed thereunder to the defendants.