CHANDRAWATI DEVI Vs. SAHDEO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff no. 2 -appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.01.2005 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Siwan, in Title Appeal no. 4 of 1996 by which the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1995 and 3.1.1996 respectively passed in Title Suit no. 47 of 1989 by the learned 2nd Munsif, Siwan, have been set aside, the appeal has been allowed and the Title Suit no. 47 of 1989 has been remanded to the court below for deciding it afresh after framing proper additional issues and taking evidence of the parties.

(2.) THE plaintiff no.1 -respondent no.2, Dinesh Ram, filed Title Suit no. 47 of 1989 for declaration that the deed of gift dated 1.11.1988 (Ext.E) executed by his father, namely, Haruni Ram (defendant no. 2) in favour of defendant no. 1, namely, Sahdeo Ram (original respondent no. 1) for the suit land was forged, fabricated, without consideration and not legally executed giving any right to the donee, besides permanent injunction from dispossession or further alienation.

(3.) THE case of plaintiff no. 2 is that defendant no. 2 being the Karta of his family entered into a contract in May, 1986 to sell his Kastkari and Dihbasgit land for Rs.25,000/ - and execution of a deed of Mahadanama in her favour on 5.5.1986. She paid Haruni Ram a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - and thereafter putting possession over the land including the suit land. As per deed of Mahadanama, the plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.2, Haruni Ram and his wife defendant no.3, Smt. Tara Devi together executed two registered sale deeds on 25.1.1987 (Ext. 3 and 3/A) in favour of plaintiff no. 2 -appellant. On the basis of this purchase the plaintiff no. 2 intervened in the suit and was allowed to be added as plaintiff no. 2. The main contesting defendant no. 1, namely, Sahdeo Ram filed his separate written statement to dismiss the suit and the suit land was given to his grand - father by father of Haruni Ram on Batai as he was working and living in West Bengal which was subsequently surrendered to them. Defendant no. 2 negotiated to sell the land with defendant no.1 for which a deed of Mahadanama was executed on 6.11.1987 but when on 1.11.1988 a sale deed was to be executed, instead of the sale deed, a deed of gift was executed because of insufficiency of money required for purchasing stamp for the sale deed. Defendant no. 2 was a clever man and not an intoxicated man. The two sale deeds in favour of plaintiff no.2 were not legally executed and the Mahadanama in her favour was antedated. On these pleadings it was prayed to dismiss the suit.