SARJUG RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIAMAHESHWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit instituted by him for recovery of Rs. 3090 from the defendant second party and Rs. 1455 from the defendant third party received by these defendants as compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of certain lands. A sum of Rs. 104 was also claimed as interest. The name of the State of Bihar, which was defendant first party, was struck out in the Court of Appeal below.

(2.) The case arose in the following circumstances. One Aghori Rai had two sons, Gena Rai and Kita Rai. The plaintiff is the grandson of Gena Rai and the defendant second party is the widow of his another grandson Sukho Rai Defendant third party is the widow of a son of Kita Rai, namely, Sarwan Rai According to the plaintiff's case, his brother Sukho Rai died in a state of jointness, and he being the sole surviving member came in possession of the entire properties of the family. However, defendant second party executed in his favour a registered deed of surrender (Ext. 6) on 4-1-1956, and on the same day the plaintiff executed a deed of maintenance in her favour (Ext. 7) with respect to the properties which were acquired in the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding. The plaintiff's case against the defendant third party is that she executed a sale deed in his favour in respect of the land in question along with other lands on 13-5-1942 (Ext. A) for valuable consideration, and in this way the plaintiff got possession over those lands which were acquired in the name of defendant third party as well. Defendant first party (the State of Bihar) acquired 2 acres of land for some public purpose. According to the further case of the plaintiff, the Land Acquisition Officer, in collusion with the defendants second and third parties, prepared the awards in their favour for the above-mentioned amounts according to their respective interest in the plot in question. When the plaintiff learnt of the same, he filed an objection, but it was dismissed and the monies were immediately paid to the said defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff demanded the money and served a notice, but having failed to get the relief instituted the present suit after service of notice on defendant first party. The plaintiff also pleaded that sometime after the death of her husband, defendant second party took another husband, namely, one Kamleshwari Singh and also begot a daughter by this marriage, and thereby she ceased to have the right of maintenance under the deed of maintenance aforesaid.

(3.) Three separate written statements were filed on behalf of each set of the defendants, and one of the pleas taken with which we are concerned was that the suit itself was not maintainable, being barred under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The further case of the defendant second party was that the deed of surrender was a sham and fraudulent transaction which was taken from her in the garb of a deed of partition. The allegation of remarriage was also seriously challenged by her as being entirely mala fide and motivated. The defendant third party also denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to her case, she wanted to execute the sale deed in favour of her Samadhi Sarjug Choudhary, but the plaintiff by practising fraud upon her, got his own name scribed in the said document.