MADAN & ANR Vs. RAM NARAYAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing RSA No.3144 of 2017 titled as "Madan and another V/s Ram Narayan Singh and another at the instance of the defendants and RSA No.6343 of 2017 titled as "Ram Narayan Singh V/s Prem Bai and others, at the instance of the plaintiff. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dtd. 4/1/2017, whereby the suit of the plaintiff, though dismissed by the trial Court, has been decreed in part.

(2.) The plaintiffs sought the declaration by challenging the mutation No.1960 of deceased Champa Devi, sanctioned in favour of Prem Bai, to be illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, with consequent relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property in any manner. It was alleged that the plaintiff and his son, were owner in possession and in cultivation of the land, but the defendants had no concern as they neither cultivated or remained in possession. Uncle of the plaintiff, namely, Kalu Ram, who was married to Champa Devi, died issueless and after his death, the property was inherited by his wife Champa Devi. Mathura Singh was the brother of Kalu Ram. He was married to Dhaka, who died in the year 1984. Both of them had two children, namely, Ram Narain-plaintiff and Rattan Bai. The mother of defendant 1 to 3, died in the year 1957 i.e. pre-deceased Champa Devi, who died on 1/2/1966. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 filed the joint statement and opposed the suit. It was alleged that it was without cause of action. There was no relation of the plaintiff with Champa Devi.

(3.) The plaintiff in support o f the pleadings examined two witnesses and brought on record Ex.PW1/A, special power of attorney executed by his father, Ex.PX, Mark C, Mark B, photocopy of the mutation. On the other hand, the defendants examined two witnesses and brought on record many documents. The trial on the basis of the evidence dismissed the suit, however, the lower Appellate Court, as noticed above, decreed the suit in part. Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) in RSA No.6343 of 2017, submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit in toto was perfectly legal and justified.