DHANBARTI KOERIN Vs. SHYAM NARAIN MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20th June, 1990 passed by Sri Bhola Nath Prasad, Sub Judge III, Aurangabad in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1981/41 of 1983 reversing the judgment and decree dated 20th February, 1981 passed by Sri Basudeo Sharan, Additional Munsif I, Aurangabad in Title Suit No. 69 of 1974/32 of 1978 whereby the learned Additional Munsif has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in brief, is that Raghunandan Koeri was the recorded tenant of the suit land. After his death, his widow Mostt. Sugiya Devi inherited the suit property. Mostt. Sugiya Devi sold the suit land to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 25-9-1958 for valuable consideration of Rs. 1000/-. After execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property. After sometime, the defendants in collusion with some villagers started making false claim over the suit land on the basis of some fraudulent sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Sugiya Devi in their favour. It is alleged that on the basis of those sale deeds, the defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and they were trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and hence, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration that she was an occupancy raiyat in respect of the suit land and that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants-respondents appeared in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. The case of the defendants-respondents, in short, is that by virtue of the sale deed dated 25-9-1958, Mostt. Sugiya Devi never sold the suit property to the plaintiff rather the said sale deed was brought in existence by playing fraud upon Sugiya Devi by the plaintiff and without payment of consideration money and as such, the plaintiff did not acquire title to the suit land and the plaintiff never came in possession of the suit land. Further case is that when the fraudulent act of the plaintiff came to the knowledge of Sugiya Devi she gave Advocate's notice to the plaintiff-appellant and thereafter she cancelled the sale deed through a registered deed of cancellation dated 5-12-1958 and after cancellation of the sale deed she sold the suit land to different persons through several registered sale deeds for valuable consideration. The defendants are bona fide purchasers of the suit property and they have been coming in possession of the suit property and also paying the rent to the State of Bihar. They are also paying canal rent for the use and occupation of the suit land for the purpose of cultivation and thus, the defendants have got title and possession over the suit land. On the basis of the above pleadings, the defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit.