MOSSOMAT RAMPATI KUER Vs. 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.) PLAINTIFF is PW 12. She has admitted that she had gone to Motihari with the defendants ostensibly for executing Mokhtarnama where she stayed for six to seven days. As claimed in the written statement, this witness has admitted that she had executed document for some land to Kishun Giri, Ramdeni Giri and Awadh Giri. But she claimed that she had not sold the land but had executed Mokhtarnamas in their favour. This to a great extent supports the case of the defendants that she had earlier sold those lands to those persons. This witness has not given any reason for executing so many Mokhtarnamas including in favour of earlier purchasers.