LAKHAN SAO Vs. PARWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Nawada in Title Appeal No. 51 of 86/4 of 85, whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 22nd December,'1984 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawada in Title Suit No. 95/78.

(2.) The plaintiff initiated a civil action for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of certain property which was described in Schedule-IV to the plaint. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that one Chaman Teli had three sons, namely, Meghu Sao, Khero Sao and Chamari Sao. All of them died during lifetime of their father. Meghu Sao died issueless. Khero Sao died leaving behind two sons, namely, Sanichar Sao and Nunu Sao. Subsequently, Nunu Sao and his wife died issueless. Chamari Sao left behind three sons, namely, Jagu Sao, Parsadi Sao and Bihari Sao. After the death of Chamari Sao his widow settled at Village- Barakar with three sons, namely, Jagu Sao, Parsadi Sao and Bihari Sao. Chaman Teli had some lands situate in Village- Sirodawar and Balia, which were recorded in his name in the last survey recorded under Khata No. 10 of Village-Sirodawar and Khata Nos. 11 and 12 of Village- Balia. Prior to vesting of estates Khangi Batwara took place in respect of the said ancestral lands between Sanichar Sao and Nunu Sao, the two sons of Khero Sao on the one hand and Jagu Sao, Parsadi Sao and Bihari Sao, the three sons of Chamari Sao on the other. After the death of Nunu Sao, Sanichar Sao became owner of the entire land. He also acquired some land in settlement. Sanichar Sao had five daughters but no male issue. Plaintiff is the son of his eldest daughter. The father of the plaintiff lived as live-in son-in-law. Sanichar Sao died before vesting of the estate leaving his widow Paro Telin as his sole heir, who came in possession over the land. Her name was mutated in respect of certain properties. Later on she executed a gift deed on 6.6.1952 in favour of the plaintiff and again on 19.8.1978 and put him in possession of the gifted land. Certain lands also came to be possessed by the plaintiff as per Schedule-IV of the plaint.

(3.) Defendants 5 to 7 executed two sale deeds in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of Schedule-IV land despite no title over the property.