NARAIN SINGH Vs. BALESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendants first party. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for a declaration that the deed of conditional sale dated 10-11-1951 executed by Bankey Singh (defendant No. 6), their uncle, and a deed of sale dated 17-3-1952 executed by one Ghanshyam alias Ghanraj Singh, uncle of their father, were not binding on them. In order to appreciate the facts, it is necessary to give a short genealogy of the family: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_91_AIR(PAT)_1974Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that Ojha Singh had two sons.-- Ruplal Singh and Ranjit Singh. Ranjit Singh died leaving behid his son Ghanraj. Ghanraj Singh became a Bairagi Sadhu more than thirty years ago after renouncing the world and was known as Ghanshyam Das. Ruplal Singh had two sons-- Bhatu Singh and Kara Singh (defendant No. 7) Bhatu Singh had a son Bankey Singh (defendant No. 6). Plaintiffs are the sons of Karu Singh. According to the plaintiffs, Bankey Singh also became a Sadhu arid was known as Basudeo Ramanuj Das and lived at Jagganathpuri. In this way, according to the plaintiffs' case, the entire family properties came in possession of the plaintiffs and their father Karu Singh. The plaintiffs at that time were minors. It is alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who are residents of the same village, with a view to grab the family properties of the plaintiffs, created a false document by bringing the aforesaid Ghanraj Singh and Bankey Singh in their collusion, although on account of renouncing the world, they had ceased to have any interest in the family properties and got a deed of conditional sale (Ext D) executed in their favour by Bankey Singh on 10-11-1951 in respect of some of the family properties described in Schedule 2 of the plaint in the name of defendant No. 5 for a nominal consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. It is further alleged that another collusive document, namely a deed of sale (Ext. D/1) was got executed on 17-3-1952 by Ghanshyam Das with respect to some other family' properties described in Schedule 3 of the plaint in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. In order to legalise the aforesaid two deeds, Ghanraj was made to execute a deed of gift (Ext. B) in favour of Bankey Singh on 19-3-1952 in respect of his half share in the family properties. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid documents did not confer any right or title to the vendees and the same remained inoperative. On 18-2-1957, defendant No. 5 executed a deed of Entkalnama (Ext. A) in favour of the female members of the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 with respect to the properties covered by the deed of conditional sale in his favour.

(3.) After completing the aforesaid fraudulent and collusive transactions, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 got a fraudulent Title Partition Suit No. 22 of 1952 filed by Bankey Singh against the plaintiffs and their father Kara Singh for partition of the family properties claiming -/12/- annas share in the properties; -/8/- annas on the basis of the deed of gift executed by Ghanraj Singh and -/4/-annas on the basis of his own right. A guardian-ad-litem was appointed for the plaintiffs, who were then minors, in the said suit, but he did not take any interest or step in the suit on behalf of the minors.