JUGAL TANTI Vs. TARNI TANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Abbas Haider appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel, Mr. Manoj Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondent under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant-appellant has filed this second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2000 passed by 4th Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Appeal No. 34 of 1996 whereby the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 24th February, 1996 passed by 7th Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 121 of 1985.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title over the suit property mentioned in detail in Schedule 'A' of the plaint and also for declaration that the municipal survey entries with respect to the suit land in the name of the defendant is illegal. The short case of the plaintiff is that the original owner of the suit land Tunna Gope sold the suit land by terms of registered sale deed dated 25.8.1932 to Darsan Tanti and Ram Tanti. On 14.9.1932 Darsan Tanti and Ram Tanti sold land to one Sheikh Ulfat by registered deed. On 3.1.1934 Sheikh Ulfat re-sold the suit land to Darsan Tanti by registered deed and therefore, Darsan Tanti became the absolute owner of the same. In 1953, Darsan Tanti sold 11 dhurs, i.e., Schedule 'B' out of Schedule 'A' land by registered sale deed to one Md. Yunus and Md. Yunus sold Schedule 'B' land to wife of Ram Tanti by registered sale deed dated 25.3.55. The defendants after partition of Schedule 'B' property are in separate possession. The defendant No. 1 has sold his share, i.e., 5 dhurs to plaintiff No. 3 by registered sale deed. In the municipal survey, new plots were carved out and name of Darsan Tanti, i.e., father of plaintiff was recorded regarding municipal plot No. 944 and 944 whereas the name of defendants was recorded so far municipal plot No. 945 is concerned. The defendants got their name entered collusively, therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title.

(3.) The defendants filed contesting written statement and according to the defendant No. 2. Darsan Tanti and Ram Tanti jointly mortgaged the property to Sheikh Ulfat and the deed dated 14.9.32 is not a sale deed rather it is mortgage need in favour of Ulfat. The so-called sale deed executed by Ulfat in favour of Darsan Tanti is deed of redemption and not sale deed. There was no partition between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the defendant No. 1 had no right to transfer the land to the plot (sic--plaintiff ) No. 3.