RAMSARAN MAHTON Vs. HARIHAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to and for recovery of possession of 1.29 acres of land appertaining to plots Nos. 1693 and 1418 in village Muamma. The plaintiffs' case was that the land in dispute originally belonged to two brothers, named Azrul Haq and Mohammad Mustafa and their sister Rashidunnissa. The land was sold by these three persons on the 28th of January, 1948, for a consideration of Rs. 4800/- to two persons, namely, Sheonandan Singh and Awadhesh Nandan Prasad. The sale deed contained two schedules of property. Schedule 1 indicated that the property included therein had been sold to Sheonandan Singh for Rs. 3800 and Schedule 2 indicated that the property included in that schedule had been sold to Awadhesh Nandan Prasad for Rs. 1000/-. The plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased the property mentioned in Schedule 1 of the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, from Sheonandan Singh by a sale deed dated the 30th June, 1948. According to the plaintiffs' case Sheonandan Singh had come in possession of Schedule 1 property mentioned above after his purchase and he put the plaintiffs in possession after the sale in question n favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then alleged that Awadhesh Nandan Prasad, on a misrepresentation that he required the sale deed dated the 28th of January, 1948, for mutation of his name with respect of Schedule 2 property had requested them to make over the sale deed which had been given to the plaintiffs by Sheonandan Singh. Ultimately, the sale deed dated the 28th of January, 1948, was directed to be handed over to Awadhesh Nandan Prasad who, however, took away a basta containing several deeds and thereafter started claiming that Sheonandan Singh was a mere farzidar for Awadhesh Nandan Prasad. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants had cut away the paddy crop grown by the plaintiffs on the land in dispute but in criminal case instituted against the defendants they were acquitted. Being emboldened by the acquittal, the defendants threatened to take possession of the disputed land. As a cloud had been cast over the title of the plaintiffs they were obliged to institute the present suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

(2.) The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 8. According to these defendants all the properties mentioned in the sale deed dated the 28th of January, 1948, had been purchased by defendant No. 1 as the Karta of the joint family of these defendants and the property in Schedule 1 of that sale deed had been purchased in the farzi name of Sheonandan Singh. According to these defendants, Sheonandan Singh had no concern with the land in dispute and had never come in possession of the same. The entire consideration for the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, had been paid by the defendant No. 1. These defendants alleged that the sale deed dated the 30th of June, 1948, was really a collusive document without consideration and the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief at all. With respect to possession of documents of title, the case of these defendants was that the original bai beyana which had preceded the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, and the said sale deed had all along been in possession of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's case that Awadhesh Nandan Prasad had been able to obtain the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, on a misrepresentation was denied. According to these defendants the crop over which the criminal case had been instituted had been grown by these defendants and the criminal case was a false one. With respect to the motive for the alleged benami transaction the case of these defendants was that because the, landlords were inimically disposed towards these defendants a purchase in the benami name of Sheonandan Singh had been made by these defendants. Sheonandan Singh was considered by these defendants to be a friend of defendant No. 2. Sheonandan Singh who was defendant No. 9 had supported the plaintiffs' case.

(3.) The learned Munsif who tried the suit held that Sheonandan Singh was not a farzidar of the contesting defendants with respect to the disputed land and the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of their title and to a decree for confirmation of their possession.