LAWS(PAT)-1951-9-4

PANCHOO SAHU Vs. JANKI MANDAR

Decided On September 26, 1951
PANCHOO SAHU Appellant
V/S
JANKI MANDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plain-tiff in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of 1 katha of land out of Survey Plot No. 1169 in village Sultangunj.

(2.) The plaintiff claims title to the disputed 1 katha of land under a registered sale-deed, dated the 5th October 1942, executed in his favour by defendant No. 1 for Rs. 100/- in respect of the entire Plot No. 1169 measuring .05 acre equivalent to 1 katha 14 1/2 dhurs. The plaintiff's case is that he paid the entire consideration money to defendant No. 1, but the latter never made over the registered sale-deed to him in spite of demands. The plaintiff, however, it is said, came into possession of the entire plot and amalgamated 15 dhurs out of it with his house. The remaining 1 katha which is in dispute was used by him as his bari, but the defendants dispossessed him from it on 1st Asarh 1353 Fs. (June 1946). The suit was instituted on 6th July 1946.

(3.) The defendants belong to the same family of which the defendant No. 1 is the head. Their defence is that the real consideration of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, executed by defendant No. 1, was Rs. 170/- though only Rs. 100/-was mentioned in the deed, and that the plaintiff paid only Rs. 70/- out of the consideration and did not pay the balance and, therefore, the sale-deed remained with the defendants. There was a difference between the parties which was referred to Panches and, according to the decision of the panches, defendant No. 1 was to execute a fresh sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 14 dhurs out of the Plot No. 1169. The plaintiff accordingly amalgamated 14 dhurs with his house and the disputed 1 katha remained in possession of the defendants as before. The defendant No. 1 also executed a fresh sale-deed for Rs. 50/- in favour of the plaintiff's son in respect of this 14 dhurs. This sale-deed, however, was not registered. According to the defendants, the registered sale-deed, dated the 5th October 1942, is inoperative and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief on the basis of that deed.