LAWS(PAT)-1994-1-2

KAMDEOMISHRA Vs. PRITHABI JHA

Decided On January 27, 1994
KAMDEO MISHRA Appellant
V/S
PRITHABI JHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been brought by the plaintiffs against the judgmeut dated 18 2 76 and the consequential decree dated 22 3.76 passed by Sub-Judge, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No 131 of 1971. The suit was filed for setting aside certain deeds of transfer in respect of the properties mentioned in the three schedules of the plaint on the ground that the defendant Kaushalya Ojhain, the vendor under the sale and gift deeds, had no title or interest in the schedule properties and it was the plaintiffs who are rightful owners in respect thereof.

(2.) I may first summarise the foundational facts. One Bhukan Jha had three sons, namely, Ramji Jha, Roop Lal and Samp Lal The family was governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The said three brothers separated from each other by affecting a partition by metes and bounds. The name of the wife of Ramji was Sulekhi. He had three issues being two daughters and one son The daughters were Sarjug Mishrain (PLalntiff No. 1) and Sampat Ojhain (PLalntiff No. 2). The son was Sonelal and the name of his wife was Kaushalya (Defendant No. 1). The original pLalntiffs and Defendant No. 1 have died during pendency of the appeal and in their places their heirs have been brought on the record.

(3.) The case of the two pLalntiffs was that their father had died in 1936 leaving behind him the said Sulekhi, Sonelal, the pLalntiffs and the defendant No. 1. Their further case is that Sonelal had died in 1927 and Sulekhi had died in 1951. Therefore, according to them keeping in view the law of succession applicable under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, they were the rightful heirs of the properties in question and since they were living with their husbands, the properties were left to be looked after by Defendant No. 1, which was being managed by heirs on their behalf. According to the pLalntiffs, defendant No. 1 under some collusion acted fraudulently in executing sale-deeds and gift-deeds in question to the detriment of the pLalntiffs, which being void and inoperative need to be set aside.