SHIVASHANKER SINGH Vs. RAGHUBANSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 4, who were defendants first party in the original suit, out of which this appeal arises, are the appellants. The other set of defendants, were transferees from defendants 1, 2 and 3. The suit by the five plaintiffs was for a declaration that the settlements of lands in suit by defendant No. 4, Dulhin Janak Dulari Kuer, in favour of defendants 1, 2 and 3 were not legal, effective, bona fide or binding on the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the presumptive reversionary heirs of Deonandan Prasad Singh, husband of defendant No. 4.

(2.) The defence, mainly on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, was that the settlements were bona fide and for legal necessity and they had been in possession since the settlement; the plaintiffs were not the presumptive reversioners of the deceased husband of the defendant No. 4; One Jadunandan Sharma alias Bachu Babu was the sister's son of the deceased Deonandan Singh and as such he was the presumptive reversioner; during his life time it was not open to the present plaintiffs to maintain the suit. It is significant to note here that in the written statement these defendants did not traverse the allegation made in plaint paragraphs 6 and 9 in regard to the cause of action that gave rise to the suit and also that the settlement by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 was in 1953 and the settlees came in possession also in the same year, (28-6-53).

(3.) The transferees from defendants 1 to 3 also filed a written statement and contested the suit. In the written statement filed by defendants 5 to 11 and 13, they alleged that the settlement in dispute had been made on the 25th Jeth, 1353 Fasli corresponding to 1946. They pleaded the bar of limitation of the suit on that account, as the suit was not instituted within six years from the dale of settlement.