SHEONANDAN SINGH Vs. MAIDA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment and the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Arrah dated nth October 1947, reversing those of the Munsif of Sasaram dated 8th February 1946.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that a rehan bond dated 27th April 1938, executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 3 and a sale deed dated 8th December 1937, executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 are inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. According to the case of the plaintiff, Ramdutt Rai and Sahdeo Rai were two brothers. Ramdutt Rai died about 12 years ago leaving his widow ML Maida Kuer, the plaintiff. Sahdeo Rai died leaving behind his widow Daulat Kuer, defendant 1, and his son Bisbundeo Rai. The latter is said to have died about 14 years ago. The plaintiff's case further was that on 18th July 1937 certain properties were given by her to Daulat Kuer defendant 1, by way of maintenance by a registered document EX. a. But now the plaintiff has come to learn that by practising fraud on her instead of a deed of maintenance, a deed of partition had been brought into existence. She further averred that defendant 1 in collusion with her brother Chulhan Singh had brought into existence the rehan bond and the sale deed in question which she had no right to execute and which are not binding upon the plaintiff. The sale deed had in fact been taken by Chulhan Singh in the farzi name of a relation of his.

(3.) The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that Ramdutt and Bishundeo were separate, and defendant 1 had inherited the properties of Bishundeo as his mother. The deed of partition dated 18th July 1936, was a genuine document. No fraud had been practised on the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the said document which was executed by the plaintiff after she bad fully understood the same. The rehan bond had been redeemed by the sale deed which, according to the defendants, wag a genuine transaction and was binding upon the plaintiff. According to the defendants the suit as framed was barred by limitation.