RAM NATH PANDEY Vs. SURESH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.9.85 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Siwan, in Title Appeal No. 104 of 1980, whereby the appellate court confirmed the judgment of the trial court dated 23.7.80 passed by the 2nd Additional Sub -Judge, Siwan, in title suit no. 60/15 of 1977/80. The defendants of that suit are the appellants before this Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondents had filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration of the title over the suit property. That was the only relief and no other relief was sought. Hence, this appeal has been admitted on the sole substantial question of law whether the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for seeking no consequential relief. The alleged facts on which the suit was filed were, in fine, to the effect that there was one Mukund Pandey who had four sons, namely, Ram Rakcha Pandey, Ram Kishun Pandey, Brij Raj Pandey and Ram Sewak Pandey. From the branch of Ram Rakcha Pandey, plaintiff no. 5 Ram Daras Pandey and plaintiff no. 6 Ram Deo Pandey are there. From the branch of Ram Sewak Pandey, there are Suresh Pandey, Ram Ugrah Pandey, Mahadeo Pandey and Ram Nagina Pandey, who are plaintiff nos, 1 to 4. Ram Kishun had two sons, Ramdayal and Ram Dat Pandey. Ramdayal died issueless and Ram Dat left behind his widow Deo Raju Kuer. Brij Raj died before R.S. leaving behind his widow Basmato Kuer who also died 30 days before filing of the suit. R.S. was prepared in the names of Brindaban, the son of Ram Rakcha, Ram Kishun and Basmato Kuer and Ram Sewak. The parties had separated before R.S. So, R.S. was prepared as mentioned above. On the death of Basmato Kuer, her property was inherited by Ram Sewak Pandey because his other brothers were already dead before the death of Basmato Kuer. However, to maintain peace in the family, Ram Sewak gave half of the land to the family of Brindaban and retained half of the land with himself and gave nothing to the branch of Ram Kishun because Ramdayal and Ram Dat had no issue. The family of Ram Sewak and Brindaban had constructed certain temples and installed certain deities therein and plaintiff no. 1 was offering puja and performing ragbhog etc. to the deities. However, Ramdayal Pandey executed a deed of endowment on 1.11.1923 and in this deed he included the property of Basmato Kuer also, over which he had no title nor any possession. He appointed himself as Motwali (Ext. C). Then on 8.10.1931 (Ext. C/1), another deed of endowment was executed by Ramdayal appointing Basmato Kuer and then after her death Deo Raju Kuer to be followed by Brij Raj Pandey and Mahendra Pandey of village Bhahailia. By a subsequent deed of correction dated 21.7.1937 (Ext. H), he changed the line of succession of Motwalis by deleting the name of Baidyanand Pandey and Mahendra Pandey to succeed Deo Rajo Kuer, the names of Jerbandhan, Bandhu and Sandhu were supplied as successors to Deo Rajo Kuer. By another deed of endowment dated 10.4.1956 (Ext. C/2). Ramdayal Pandey again executed a Tamliknama and by this deed Jagat Narayan Pandey was appointed as Motwali on the death of Deo Rajo Kuer.

(3.) THE case of the defendant -appellants was that Ramdayal Pandey had executed all the deeds of endowment in a state of perfect physical and mental health. The deeds of endowment were all legal and valid and the property, in question, was in possession of the defendant -appellants. The plaintiffs had no title over the suit land and, hence, the suit is fit to be dismissed.