JAIDEO YADAV Vs. DAYANAND YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant no.1-respondent-appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1993 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Purnea in Title Appeal No.50 of 1991 whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 19.06.1991 passed by Sub Judge I, Purnea in Title Suit No.59 of 1986.

(2.) THE plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid title suit for declaration of their title over the suit property and further for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant 2 nd party i.e. defendant no.2 in favour of defendant 1st party i.e. defendant no.1 on 29.04.1986 with respect to suit land is void ab initio and same is not binding on the plaintiffs. THE plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that one Bacchan Yadav had two sons namely Saini Yadav and Jahuri Gope. Both brothers were joint. Saini Yadav died prior to revisional survey proceeding. THErefore, the suit property was recorded in the name of his two sons, Fuleshwar Yadav and Basudeo Yadav having one share and in the name of widow of late Jahuri Gope namely Tulia Devi having one share. THE second son, Basudeo Yadav died unmarried in the year 1965. After final publication, Tulia Devi also died issueless. THErefore, plaintiff no.1 became the absolute owner of the property. THE plaintiff nos.1 and 2 are the sons of plaintiff no.1. Recently the defendant 2 nd party describing himself to be the son of Jahuri Gope executed a sale deed in favour of defendant 1st party without any consideration on 29.04.1986. According to the plaintiff, Jahuri Gope died issueless and Prithwi Yadav, defendant 2nd party is fictitious person. THE defendant- appellant is litigant and is next door neighbour of the plaintiff who managed to get the sale deed by false and fictitious man who is in no way related to Jahuri Gope or Tulia Devi.

(3.) SECTION 101 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.