SHEO KUMAR SINGH Vs. HANUMAT PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession over 3 bighas, 17 kathas and 91/2 dhurs of land, situate in village Siswa Patna, in the district of Champaran.

(2.) Admittedly, the lands in dispute belonged to one Ramdheyan Singh. He died leaving behind his widow Jiana Kuar. On 8th of May, 1938, she executed a registered deed of gift in respect of 7 bighas 15 kathas and 10 dhurs of land including the suit lands in favour of the appellant. Jiana Kuar died in 194.5. The plaintiff-Respondent instituted Title Suit No. 36 of 1947 claiming the gifted lands as the next reversioner of the estate of Ramdheyan Singh. The present appellant was a defendant to that suit. He was a minor at that time and was placed under the guardianship of this natural guardian. The dispute was referred to arbitration through court. The Arbitrators submitted their award and the Court passed a decree according to it. The Plaintiff-Respondent, according to that decree, was given the lands in dispute. His case is that he got possession over the suit land but was subsequently dispossessed in 1961 and, therefore, was obliged to institute the present suit.

(3.) The main defence of the appellant were- (i) that he was a minor and the reference to arbitration being in violation of Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the award decree was not binding on him; and (ii) that the plaintiff-respondent did not execute the decree in his favour and never got possession over the suit lands and, therefore, his claim was barred by limitation. The appellant also challenged the claim of the plaintiff-Respondent that he was the next reversioner of the estate of Ramdheyan Singh and thus entitled to the inheritance of Jiana Kuer and further averred that fraud was practised upon his father, his guardian in the previous suit, who was addicted to Ganja and Bhang, in getting the matter referred to arbitration.