SAMRATHI DEVI Vs. PARASURAM PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant instituted the suit for a declaration that the deed of surrender executed by her in favour of defendant No. 1 (since dead) on the 1st July, 1963 (Ext. D) was invalid and inoperative. There is also a prayer for confirmation of possession in respect of the suit lands which have been described in schedule 3 at the foot of the plaint.

(2.) One Sajeewan Pandey had three sons, namely, Gaya Pandey, Mandil Pandey and Mathura Pandey. Defendants 2 and 3 are the descendants of the said Gaya Pandey, and defendant No. 4 of Mathura Pandey. Mandil Pandey had two sons, namely, Sheo-lakhan Pandey and Ram Janam Pandey who died long ago. Mostt. Bihasi, defendant No. 1, who was widow of Sheolakhan, also died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. Ram Janam had a son named Kedar Pandey, who died unmarried, and a daughter named Samrathi Devi who is the plaintiff in this case. It is not disputed that the three sons of Sajeewan Pandey had already separated amongst themselves. The dispute in (his suit is with regard to the estate of Mandil Pandey. According to the case of the plaintiff, on Sheolakhan's death, her father Ramjanam Pandey being the last male holder in this branch, came in exclusive possession of the properties in question in his own rights, Mostt. Bihasi being simply a maintenance holder, and, on the death of her father and her brother, Kedar, the plaintiff succeeded to the estate, she being the only heir. According to her further case, she entrusted the management of the suit properties to defendant No. 1 Mostt. Bihasi, her aunt, as she was married at a distant place. This part of the plaintiff's story regarding the character of possession of Mostt. Bihasi has not been accepted, and, according to the findings, defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit properties in her own rights and had perfected her title as such by adverse possession. Be that as it may, on the 8th April, 1963, defendant No. 1 executed a deed of gift (Ext. 5) in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit lands by a registered document, and the document in question was also delivered by her to the plaintiff, which has been produced on her behalf in the suit. It further appears that after the execution of this document, the other defendants who had a reversionary right in the properties of defendant No. 1 started creating trouble, and it gave rise to some criminal proceedings, such as, a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a criminal case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the further case of the plaintiff, during the pendency of the said cases, she was brought to Buxar by the defendants to effect a compromise in the said cases, and, thereby putting pressure and undue coercion on her as also by practising fraud, she was made to execute a document, namely, a deed of surrender (Bajidawa) (Ext. D) on the 1st July, 1963, with respect to the suit properties in favour of defendant No. J. Defendant No. 1 on the same day executed two documents of gift in favour of the other set of defendants which are Exts. C and C/1. According to the plaintiff's case, she had got possession over the suit lands by virtue of the deed of gift in her favour; but after the execution of the aforesaid fraudulent document, the defendants started holding out threats to dispossess her, and, accordingly, the present suit was instituted for the reliefs already mentioned above. According to the plaintiff's case, this deed of surrender (Ext, D) was entirely inoperative, void and not binding on her, conferred no title upon the defendants.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 appeared and filed her separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. She, however, died sometime thereafter during the pendency of the suit.