UDAI SHANKAR SINGH Vs. SULO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants who were interveners in the suit and defendant nos. 7 to 10 against the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Nawadah in Title Appeal No. 20/1986 (48/1986) affirming the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Additional Sub -Judge, Nawadah in Title Suit No. 6 of 1984.

(2.) THE original plaintiff late Chatharu Singh filed Misc. case no. 24 of 1972 to sue the original defendant as forma pauparis. The misc. case was allowed on 15.11.1982 and a suit was registered as Title Suit no. 454/1974 on 6.9.1974 before the Subordinate Judge, Nawadah. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit the original plaintiff Chatharu Singh sold the suit land to Sub Singh the plaintiff respondents first party who stepped into the shoes of the Chatharu Singh and replaced him as plaintiff but the suit even after substitution of Sulo Singh had continued as a pauper suit. No where it is there that Sulo Singh after his substitution as plaintiff in place of Chatharu Singh had also made any prayer for issuing forma Pauparis. The case of the original plaintiff was that he and his brother Rupan Singh owned and possessed rayati kasti land in khata nos. 378, 379 and 760 in village Upsarh P.S. Warisaliganj district Gaya. Chathrau Singh became very old and the family affairs was being looked into jjy Rupan Singh who was a simpletion rustic and illiterate person and they were alleged to be credulous persons and can be made to believe in the words of other and, as such, they were being deceived. Taking advantage of the age and the mental condition of the two brothers the persons in the village started to begin for grabbing their properties. The first attempt was made by Kapildeo Singh and Rajdeo Singh who by duping Chatrahu Singh got manufactured sale deed in their favour for which compulsory registration case was started by the predecessors.

(3.) TWO written statements were filed one by Defendant no. 5 (Respondent no. 6 Belayati Singh) and another written statements were filed by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 5 -respondent no. 6 it was stated that the plaintiff and his brother were fully knowing as to what they were doing and, as such, the sale deed dated 23.1.1971 was executed on a consideration of Rs.2000/ - as the value of the land and then the vendees were put in possession. The allegation in the plaint were all denied. It was also stated that the executant had admitted his signature in the sale deed before the Sub -Registrar and, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this appeal have challenged the status of Sulo Singh, the present plaintiff who have been substituted in place of Chatrhu Singh and deed of 16.4.1980 in his favour has been claimed to be erroneous, untenable. According to them when the suit property had already been transferred vide sale deeds dated 23.8.1971 and 3.2.1971 to defendant nos. 1 to 6 there remained no interest left with Chathrau Singh the original plaintiff to execute the sale deed in favour of the substituted plaintiff Sulo Singh. Description of the lands included in the sale deed have been described in the written statement itself. During the pendency of the suit the present appellants had filed an intervention petition for intervening in the suit on the plea that their vendor Kapildeo Singh and Rajdeo Singh had acquired right title and interest. These defendants did not know about the suit, so by these defendants right have been traversed. The purchase from Chatahru Singh and his brother by these defendants were made by full knowledge on payment of an adequate consideration and still then when no registration has been made by the executants Chathrau and Rupan then a compulsory registration case was filed as contemplated under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act and then by order of the court the same was ordered to be registered. Practically against the defendants/intervenors who are the appellants in the case no relief was claimed against them or regarding their purchase deeds but it is not known as to how these intervenors/defendants had intervened in the suit and even after their intervention also the relief in the suit had not been changed. In that way the intervenor ought to have misioined as the parties and that there was no scope of considering their deeds or the suits by which their deeds were compulsorily registered and the validity thereof in the present suit. But it appears that the court below committed error. They have made issue regarding the validity and genuinity or otherwise of the deeds of the intervenor/defendants and the suit had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring the deeds of the original defendants and also of the intervenor/defendants as invalid in the eye of law. Hence the present appeal. Besides the present appeal another appeal being S.A. No. 230/1998 was also filed by the original defendants against the same judgment and decree passed but very peculiarly in that appeal the plaintiffs and the original defendants have compromised and the appeal was not passed and, as such, dismissed on withdrawal.