SUSHEELA DEVI Vs. SULEHARA KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 8.2.1988, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Siwan, in Title Appeal No. 132 of 1972 (Most. Sita Kuar and Ors. v. Indrawati Devi and Ors.), whereby he has set-aside the judgment and decree, dated 15.6.1972, passed by the learned 1st Munsif, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 81 of 1965 (Most. Fula Kuar and Ors. v. Bishwanath Pandey and Ors.). The Trial Court had decreed the suit which has been set aside by the impugned judgment. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

(2.) Most. Fula Kuar (since deceased), and Janardan Ojha respondent No. 2, filed Title Suit No. 81 of 1965, against Bishwanath Pandey (since deceased) and Most. Salehara Kuar (respondent No. 1) for adjudication that Most. Salehara Kuar had no right to execute the two sale-deeds, dated 10.03.1965 (Exts. A and A/1) in favour of Bishwanath Pandey and the latter has acquired no right, title and interest over the disputed properties, and also for confirmation of their possession and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. The disputed properties are situate in two villages, namely, Sanjaniya and village Punakbuzurg.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 (who was the original before the learned Court of appeal below) appeared and filed written statement. He admitted that Thaggan Pandey had two sons, but denied that Bhagwat Pandey died issueless, and Jai Narain Pandey died about 30-31 years ago (1934-35). He also denied that defendant No. 2 (Most. Salehara Kuar) was mere maintenance holder. According to him, just after death of Thaggan Pandey, his both sons became separate in mess and business and also privately partitioned the family properties half and half and they came in possession accordingly. It is the further case of defendant No. 1 Jai Narain Pandey died about 19-20 years ago, i.e., 1945-46, and, after his death, defendant No. 2 (Most Salehara Kuar), inherited and came in possession over the properties left behind by her husband. After passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, defendant No. 2 became absolute owner and she executed the two sale-deeds in question with consideration to meet her urgent needs, and she had handed over possession of the suit properties to defendant No. 1.