T RAMPATI KUER Vs. T SIMREKHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree recorded by the 5th Additional Subordinate Judge at Motihari in Title Suit No. 206/1966/ 21/1971. The suit having been dismissed by the trial Court the plaintiff has come as appellant and the defendants including substituted heirs are respondents who, for the sake of convenience, will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.

(2.) Mostt. Rampati Kuer filed the suit aforesaid for declaration of her title over the suit property detailed in Schedule I to III of the plaint as well for recovery of possession over the same and for mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that her father-in-law Ram Sunder Sah had a son Rajaram Sah and four daughters, the plaintiff being the wife of the aforesaid Rajaram Sah who predeceased his father. Thereafter, Ramsunder Sah also expired leaving behind his widow, the plaintiff and four daughters. In the year 1951 widow of Ram Sunder Sah also died whereafter the plaintiff came into possession over the entire suit properties left by Ramsunder Sah. Further the case of the plaintiff was that original defendant No. 1, Sotim Sah, as also defendant Nos. 2 and 3 confided in the plaintiff that the daughters of Ramsunder Sah had greedy eyes upon the suit properties, and, thereby induced the plaintiff to execute a Mokhtarnama (power of attorney) in their favour so that they could manage the anticipated litigations. Believing them the plaintiff agreed to their proposal at which those defendants brought the plaintiff to Motihari and kept her there for a week during which period they took her to the Court two or three times and on 6.7.1962 they got two documents executed and the third document on 7.7.1962 purporting the same to be Mokhtarnamas. However, documents were written neither on her instructions nor the same were read over to her. The plaintiff admitted in the plaint that at the time of admission of the execution the Bench Clerk of the Sub-Registrar asked her something which, however, she did not follow. Her claim was that inspite of execution of those documents she continued in possession of the properties but on 5.2.1963 the defendants dispossessed her. Thereafter, on enquiry, she came to know that on 6.7.1962 she was made to execute two sale-deeds, one being in relation to Schedule I properties for a consideration of Rs. 400/- and the other in respect of Schedule II properties for a consideration of Rs. 50/- only. It also transpired that on 7.7.1962 a third sale deed was got executed for the properties detailed in Schedule III of the plaint, for a consideration of Rs. 9000/-. The plaintiff claimed that no consideration was ever paid to her. She also claimed that she was still continuing in the house where she was living which was included in the third sale deed.

(3.) The defendants including heirs of Sotim Sah filed a joint written statement, denying all the allegations as made against them, claiming that Ramsunder Sah had died leaving behind unmarried daughter and widow Mateshwari, who and the plaintiff had raised loans to arrange the marriage of that daughter and in order to pay back the debt including some other debts that they had incurred, they executed a sale deed in favour of one Kishun Giri and Awadh Giri. Thereafter, after death of Mostt. Mateshari, the plaintiff executed another sale deed in favour of one Ramdeni Giri for the same purpose, hence was quite aware of the procedure relating to the execution of the sale deeds. These defendants further claimed that the brother of the plaintiff often visited her and advised her to dispose of the properties in the village and to shift to her father's place whereafter the plaintiff approached these three defendants for sale of the lands. It was claimed that properties detailed in Schedule II of the plaint had already been given to defendant No. 3 in lieu of Rs. 50/- by Ramsunder Sah himself upon which defendant No. 3 had constructed a pucca house though no deed was executed for that, therefore the plaintiff executed the deed as she was aware of the truth. So far Schedule I properties are concerned, the defendants claimed that Late Sotim Sah had established a brick kiln over that, hence the land had devalued and for that reason the plaintiff sold the land to Sotim Sah for a consideration of Rs. 400/- and received the consideration before the execution of the deed. Relating to Schedule III properties, the defendants maintained that asper the prevailing market rate, price of Rs. 9,000/- was fixed for the property which was sold. It was claimed that the three sale deeds were scribed at the instruction of the plaintiff and she executed those with full understanding of their contents, and for consideration, over which the defendants were given possession.