SUBODH NATH AND ORS. Vs. FULU RANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 02-07-2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 12/2003 thereby allowing the first appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 04-09-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Karimganj in Title Suit No. 10/1996 decreeing the suit of the appellant/ plaintiffs.

(2.) The brief fact of the case as projected in the plaint is that the suit land originally belonged to one Ramu Nath who died intestate in the year 1926 leaving behind two sons, viz. Jogendra Nath and Sachindra Nath. After the death of Ramu Nath the aforementioned two sons had inherited the suit land beside other landed property from their father and were holding the said property in ejmali. Jogendra Nath died in the year 1971 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No. 5 and his own brother Sachindra Nath and the above mentioned plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 who are the daughters and sons of late Jogendra Nath. Proforma defendant No. 5 and mother of the plaintiff No. 2 to 5, Kamada Bala Debi are the daughters of late Jogendra Nath. After the death of Jogendra Nath, plaintiff No. 1, Kamada Bala Debi along with other co-sharers Sachindra Nath and proforma defendant No. 5 had been enjoying the suit property jointly along with other landed property left behind by Ramu Nath. Kamada Bala Debi died in the year 1992 leaving behind plaintiff No. 2 to 5 as the legal heirs. Sachindra Nath died in the year 1976 leaving behind his wife Pramila Debi and the plaintiffs as well as the proforma defendant No. 5 as his legal heirs and accordingly the property described in the schedule to the plaint remained in ejmali holding of the said legal heirs until the death of Pramila Debi. After the death of Pramila Debi entire property described in the schedule to the plaint along with other landed property of late Ramu Nath automatically devolved upon the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No. 5. Promila Debi died in the year 1993 leaving behind the above named plaintiff and the proforma defendant No. 5 and accordingly they have been maintaining their physical possession over the suit land without any interference from any part.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that sometime in the first part of the year 1995 it had come to their notice that principal defendants have created a collusive, forged and fabricated gift deed in their favour pertaining to the suit land and thereafter on the basis of relevant enquiry made by the plaintiffs, they could obtain the certified copy of a registered deed of gift bearing No. 2111 dated 13-07-1989. The certified copy of the registered gift deed was obtained by them only on 04-04-1995 pursuant whereto they could come to know about the illegality and fraudulent activities of the principal defendants. The plaintiffs case is that the gift deed was illegal fraudulent and the same did not confer any right, title and interest over the defendant No. 1. It is their case that Pramila Debi never executed the gift deed dated 13-07-1989 in favour of principal defendant No. 1 and that Pramila Debi never appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Karimganj for registration of the said document. The plaintiff further pleaded that Pramila Debi never delivered possession of the gifted property, described in the schedule to the plaint, in favour of the principal defendant No. 1 or in favour of any of her representative and therefore, the gift deed was never acted upon. On the basis of such pleadings the plaintiffs had instituted Title Suit No. 10/1996 in the court of Asstt. District Judge [now Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)], Karimganj, inter-alia, praying for a decree declaring that the registered deed of gift dated 13-07-1989 as collusive, void and forged; for declaration of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land; for permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs.