SITA RAM Vs. DRAUPADI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants. They were appellants in the court below also. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 for declaration of her title along with defendant Nos. 11 and 12 who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) The admitted facts are that khata No. 60 of village Chitarpur was recorded in the name of Kani Mahto and Ghasi Mahto. Ghana and Jogi were the sons of Kani and Ghuja was the son of Ghansi. Shana being dead, his daughter is defendant No. 9 and his son is defendant No. 10 Ghuja is defendant No. 7. According to the plaint plot No. 2357 of that Khata was settled with Brij Mohan Lal Agrawal, husband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Ghuja said plot No. 2358 the plot in the suit, to respondent No. 1 and Kesri Kumari, granddaughter of the brother of Brij Mohan Lal. Kesri died as minor within two years from the date of the sale. Respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3 claimed the property by virtue of the said purchase on 21-11-1941. The sale deed is Ext. 3/A. In the plaint they have stated various acts of possession over this plot as well as over plot No. 2357. According to the defence plot No. 2358 was transferred by Ghana and Jogi, two sons of Kani to Quamruddin on 6-11-1840 (Ext. C). Quamruddin in his turn transferred 1/2 of that plot i. e. Order 29 1/2 to Foddar on 2-4-1961 (Ext. A/11 and Foddar transferred 0.09 1/2 out of the same to the appellants on 31-7-1973 (Ext. A). The appellants have also stated in their written statement about various acts of possession with regard to the property.

(3.) Both the courts have found that Quamruddin never came in possession of the property in the suit. His document was sham and was never given effect. It has been found that Ghuja had exclusive right to transfer the whole of plot No. 2358 and the transferees or their successors in interest under Ext. 3/A were in possession of the property. Appellants were never in possession of the property in the suit.