RAMADHAR SINGH Vs. DEO SHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of affirmance by the appellate court below upholding the dismissal of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed no. 3562 dated 01.06.1987, sale deed no. 3563 dated 01.06.1987 and sale deed no. 3564 dated 01.06.1987 are illegal, void and inoperative document and not binding on the plaintiffs. The prayer has been made to cancel those sale deeds and further prayer has been made to restrain the defendants for interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the lands described in Schedule B and Schedule C of the plaint.

(3.) The genealogical table is not in dispute between the parties according to which Diya Singh had three sons namely Akalu Singh, Mosafir Singh and Jamindar Singh who succeeded to the properties of Diya Singh after his death. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Akalu Singh separated from his two brothers Mosafir Singh and Jamindar Singh, and in state of separation he died in the year 1932 leaving behind his two sons, Deorajit Singh and Gaju Singh. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Gaju Singh died issueless in the year 1942 leaving behind his wife Bachkalo Kuer, in jointness with his brother Deorajit Singh, his nephews Sheodayal Singh, Ramgovind Singh and Ramdeo Singh. His wife Bachakalo Kuer thereafter continued in jointness till her lifetime. Sheodayal and Ramdeo Singh died unmarried and issueless. Ramgovind Singh alongwith his son and grandsons as plaintiffs in the suit have challenged the three sale deeds by Bachakalo Kuer, executed separately in favour of defendant nos. 1,2 and 3 on 01.06.1987, mainly on the ground that Bachakalo Kuer had continued and died in jointness with the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property, and therefore, had no right to alienate the same and further also on the ground that no consideration had been paid to Bachakalo Kuer and the sale deeds had been obtained fraudulently taking benefit of diminished power of understanding of Bachkalo Kuer. The three sale deeds in favour of defendant nos. 1,2 and 3 have been described in detail in Schedule A and Schedule B of the plaint.