DHIRENDRA SINGH Vs. PRIYAMBADA LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff -Appellants have filed this appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in Title Appeal No. 66 of 1982 by the Additional District Judge III, Bhagalpur, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the Title Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 64 of 1977 by the Additional Munsif, Bhagalpur.The Plaintiffs had filed theTitle Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit land, which had been decreed by the learned Additional Munsif.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Appellants, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is bad in law.

(3.) IN short the case of the Plaintiffs -Appellants is that one Late Kunj Bihari Singh, father of plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 and grandfather of plaintiff nos. 4 and 7 and the plaintiffs were members of joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law and Kunj Bihari Singh was Karta. The defendant no. 5, Smt. Prembada Lai had filed title Suit No. 98 -of 1967 in the Court of Munsif II, Bhagalpur in the capacity of representative of the joint family of the defendants against Kunj Bihari Singh and the plaintiff no. 1, Dhirendra Singh for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in respect of 6 dhurs of land. That title suit had been contested by the plaintiff no. 1 denying the title and possession of the defendant on the ground that Kunj Bihari Singh was a man of weak mind and was almost an idiot and was adicted to Ganja and the sale deed dated 7.10.1964 was a got up document. The suit land was never transferred and its possession was never delivered to the defendant. Earlier Title ' Suit No. 98 of 1967 was decreed by the Munsif II on 31.7.1972 and against that judgment and decree Title Appeal No. 43 of 1972 had been filed and the judgment and decree of Title Suit was set aside in the said Title Appeal by the Additional Sub -Judge IV, Bhagalpur. In August, 1972 the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and they are continuing in possession over it.