BAIDYANATH CHOUDHARY Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of Title Suit No. 258 of 1987. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed the suit for declaration of their right title over the suit property including the prayer for restoring of possession and by amendment in the plaint it has further sought declaration that the sale deed dated 1.10.1975 executed by Rampati Devi to Baidyanath Choudhary, defendant no. 1. forged, fabricated and void ab initio and that the subsequent deed of sale in favour of defendant no. 2 by defendant no. 1 on 25.7.1990 be declared as void. One Jago Kuer was the original owner of the suit land measuring 1 katha 10 dhurs; she sold away the said land to her daughter Rampati Devi on 17.8.1965. Rampati Devi was married to Chandra Govind Choudhary who had also another wife Mt. Sautan through whom there was a son Ram EkbaI Choudhary. Ram Pati Devi had sold to defendant no. 1 the same suit land vide sale deed on 1.10.1975 and defendant no. 1 in turn had sold it to other defendants by sale deed of 1990 both of which deeds has been sought to be declared as void on the ground that Rampati Devi died on 5.9.1975 and, as such, an impostor had been procured to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 in the name of Rampati Devi. Plaintiffs claimed the land through Ram Ekbal Pd. Choudhary who sold it to Defendant no. 2 then to plaintiff by sale deed dated 10.2.1981. In the written statement the defendant has given a specific date to the effect that Ram Pati Devi died on 16.11.1976, so the crux of dispute remains as to the date of death of Ram Pati Devi. In support of the contention of the plaintiff that Ram Pati Devi died on 5.9.1975 a medical certificate was produced and together with death registration sheet in the municipality, besides the oral evidence being adduced to that effect.

(2.) AGAINST that defendants sheet -anchor was a document Ext. 1/2 which was admittedly executed before the alleged date of death on 5.9.1975 from the side of the plaintiff but that document also does not support the date of death as specifically stated from the side of the defendant. Then taking that document to be an admitted document having admitted signature of Rampati Devi, the said document Ext. A/1 was said to be tallied with that thumb impression of alleged Rampati Devi, in Ext -A the document of the defendants there were two reports of handwriting expert. It appears that the courts below had rightly rejected both the reports. Appellate court has held that by admitting the document Ext -A/1 in evidence it does not go to show that the same bears the genuine signature of Rampati Devi as regards that there was no evidence. The trial court on the submissions being made from the side of the defendants had expressed doubt also about the genuineness of the death registration sheet of the municipality and also the death certificate issued by the doctor but by elaborate discussion the appellate court has relied in those two documents also. The trial court held that even if those two documents are not relied on then also the defendants have failed to prove that Ram Pati Devi died on 16.11.1976 rather the oral evidence adduced from the side of the plaintiff remained unimpeachable showing that she had died on 5.9.1975.