BASANT RAI Vs. SANMATIA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.1986 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist, Buxar in Title Suit No.220 of 1976 dismissing the plaintiff-appellants suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration that the registered sale deeds dated 04.02.1966, 22.07.1963, 01.07.1955 and 13.11.1958 with respect to the suit land are fraudulent, void and sham transactions and not binding on the plaintiff. THE plaintiff also prayed for declaration that the rehan deeds dated 22.12.1953 and 11.11.1958, the hand notes dated 01.06.1962, 29.07.1962 and 30.06.1965 in respect of the suit land were executed without legal necessity and were fictitious and fabricated documents. THE plaintiff also prayed for his possession over the suit land or in the alternative for recovery of possession.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned Judgment on two accounts firstly, the learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly held that the suit is barred under Article 60 of the Limitation Act because in the present case, Article 60 of the Limitation Act is not applicable rather Article 109 is applicable. THErefore, if article 109 read with Section 6 of the Limitation Act is applied then the suit is not barred by limitation and in fact in this case Article 109 is applicable. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the sale deeds are not supported by adequate consideration. THE leaned counsel further submitted that while disposing of the coparcenary property, the Manager should act as prudent man and not to sacrifice the property for an inadequate consideration. In the present case according to the learned counsel, it is shocking to the conscience that for meager consideration amount, 8 bigghas of joint family property has been transferred by the father of the plaintiff and it seems that in fact the father had sacrificed the property and, therefore on that ground, alone also the impugned sale deeds are liable to be set aside. In this case at the time of hearing of the appeal, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.