RAMCHARITRA SINGH Vs. SONEFUL DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs preferred the second appeal before this Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs claimed 1/4th share in the suit properties on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 31st October, 1964 (Ext. 1) executed by Most. Punia (pro forma defendant) in favour of the plaintiffs. The cause of action arose on 2nd November, 1964, when the defendants refused to partition the suit land. The suit was filed on 1st December, 1964. It is stated in para. No. 7 of the plaint that on the basis of the sale deed executed on 31st October, 1964, these plaintiffs came in possession of the suit land. On these facts, the appellate court held in para. No. 11 of the judgment that the entire assertion of plaintiffs about possession and demand for partition and refusal thereof by the defendants is a cock and bull story. The lower appellate court also held in para. No. 19 of the judgment that the plaintiffs, in fact, purchased, as per Ext. 1 merely a bag of sand and nothing more as Most. Punia had no interest capable of being transferred to them.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that they purchased 1/4th share of Most. Punia (pro forma defendant) on the basis of the sale deed dated 31st October, 1964, executed by her in favour of these plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Kanhai Barhi had four sons, namely, Fagu, Dhatu, Baudh and Santokhi. Before 1938, Fagu, Bhatu and Baudh died in a state of jointness. Fagu left behind him his son, Raghunath Barhi. Most. Punia was the widow of Raghunath. It is she who executed the sale deed (Ext. 1) in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of her alleged 1/4th share in the joint family property. After the death of Fagu, Bhatu and Baudh, there was separation in the family in the year 1938. In spite of the separation, they did not divide their properties by metes and bounds. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that Kanhai Barhi left no property. His four sons jointly acquired the lands with their own earned money. Hence, it is for this reason that their names were jointly recorded in the survey records of right, each having 1/4th share in the survey khatian, in respect of the suit lands. It is on the basis of this entry in the survey khatian (Ext. E) that the plaintiffs claimed that Raghunath had 1/4th share in the suit properties. The case of the plaintiffs is that Raghunath died in the year 1940, that is, after the separation in 1938, and, as such Most. Puniya succeeded to the property left by Raghunath.