NARSINGH UPADHAYA Vs. KAPILDEO SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ramjanam Singh was a tenant of about 30.76 acres of land situated in Bhandari, P.S. Mahiganwa, in the district of Palamau. His only son Faujdar Singh died during his life time. Faujdar Singh was married to Nagbali Kuer. When Ramjanam Singh died in the year 1944, he left behind his widow, Dhanraj Kuer, and Nagbali Kuer as his only heirs. Ramjaman Singh had two daughters also. One of these daughters died issueless during the life time of Ramjanam Singh. The other daughter is Pranjit Kuer, who was married to one Rambriksh of village Sibandih in the district of Palamau. At the time of death of Ramjanam Singh, Nagbali Kuer was a minor. Ramjanam Singh had also a step -brother, named, Bhagwan Singh. This Bhagwan Singh made attempts to grab the property left behind by Ramjanam Singh. Dhanraj Kuer acting on her own behalf and as guardian of her daughter in -law, Nagbali Kuer, executed a Sale Deed in the year 1945 in favour of the brothers of the Plaintiff/respondent, Dharamdeo Singh and Alakhdeo Singh. Plaintiff/respondent had a 4th brother whose name was Nawzadin Singh. The quantum Zamindar filed a suit for arrears of rent against Dharamdeo Singh and Alakhdeo Singh and obtained a decree. In execution of the said money decree, the land in dispute which has an area of about 3.76 acres was sold at a court auction and was purchased by the plaintiff/respondent who obtained possession in pursuance of the said auction -sale on August, 22, (sic). On June, 7, 1962, Nagbali Kuer purported to transfer her half -share in the estate of Ramjanam Singh in favour of the defendant/appellant by means of a registered sale deed. On July, 31, 1962, the plaintiff respondent and his three brothers and defendant/appellant executed a Sulehanama. By means of this document, Plaintiff/respondent and his brothers gave up their claim in respect of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant/appellant in the present Second Appeal, whereas, defendant/appellant relinquished all his rights under the Sale Deed dated June 7, 1962, in respect of the remaining portion of the land which originally belonged to Ramjanam Singh. There is no controversy between the parties with regard to the facts stated above. Plaintiff/respondent, thereafter, commenced the suit in the court of Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj on 1.7.1965. It was inter alia contended by him that Sulehnama dated July, 31, 1962, had been obtained from him by the defendant/appellant by means of coercion and threats and was not binding upon him. In the plaint the facts stated in the first paragraph of the judgment were recited. According to the Plaintiff/respondent, Dhanraj Kuer feared danger to her life and property on account of the misdeeds of Bhagwan Singh who was falsely laying claim to the land left behind by Ramjanam Singh. It was alleged that faced with this situation, Dhanraj Kuer had no other alternative left but to execute a sale deed of the entire land left behind by Ramjanam Singh in favour of the plaintiffs' brothers Dharmdeo Singh and Alakhdeo Singh. Plaintiff/respondent contended that Sulehnama dated July 31, 1962 had not been acted upon and was in consequence a dead letter. He accordingly claimed relief for declaration of his title and sought confirmation of his possession over three acres and odd of the disputed land. In the alternative, he prayed that possession of the land in dispute may be given back to him.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant. It was asserted by him that Nagbali Kuer being admittedly a minor, her share could not have been transferred by her mother -in -law Dhanraj Kuer. It was averred by defendant/appellant that Nagbali Kuer had a subsisting title to the extent of half in the lands left behind by Ramjanam Singh and she had rightly executed a sale deed of the same in favour of defendant/appellant on June 7, 1962. It was denied by the defendant/appellant that any threat was held out by him in obtaining the Sulehnama dated July 31, 1962. He further asserted that the compromise deed dated July 31, 1962 was binding between the parties inter it. Certain other pleas were also raised by the defendant/appellant which I do cot consider necessary to recount.

(3.) Both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding that no coercion or threat was exercised by the defendant/appellant in obtaining the document dated July 31, 1962. It has been held that the parties to the said document executed the same with their free will without any pressure. It has been held by the two courts that the sale deed executed by Dhanraj Kuer in favour of Alakhdeo Singh and Dharamdeo Singh on December, 6, 1945, was a valid document. They have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff/respondent acquired good title to the land in dispute by virtue of the court auction held in execution of the decree for arrears of rent. They have also held that plaintiff/respondent and his brothers have been in possession of the land in -dispute from December, 6, 1945. According to the said courts, the compromise deed dated July, (sic), 1962, was without consideration and not legally enforceable. The consequence is that although plaintiff/respondent lost the case so far his exercise of undue influence in obtaining the documents dated July, 31, 1962 was concerned, he has succeeded in obtaining the reliefs prayed for. The correctness of the findings recorded by the court below have been challenged before me in this Second Appeal.