RAMENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.1985 passed by Shri Tarkeshwar Narain, Subordinate Judge, Khagaria in T.A. No. 7 of 1981, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1981 passed by Shri Sheo Kumar Prasad, Munsif, Khagaria in T.S. No. 26 of 1976.

(2.) AT the out set it may be mentioned that the plaintiff -appellant earlier filed a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1981 passed by the Munsif, Khagaria in T.S. No. 26 of 1976. The earlier second appeal was numbered as S.A. No. 48 of 1982 and the same was heard by a Bench of this Court, which allowed the aforesaid appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 21.1.1982 and the case was sent back to the lower appellate court for a fresh decision after hearing the parties on the materials on record in accordance with law. Thereafter the matter was again heard by the lower appellate court and this impugned judgment has been passed on 10.7.1985, whereby the appellate court has again dismissed the appeal against the appellant. Thus this plaintiff's appeal is against the judgment of affirmance.

(3.) THE plaintiff's case may be stated in brief as follows: The plaintiff being the only issue of her father used to get substantial amount from him due to love and affection and with the aforesaid accumulated amount she purchased 5 Bigha 15 Katha and 17 Dhurs of land for a sum of Rs. 500/ - by a registered sale deed dated 10.2.1943 from Ayodhya Singh. The plaintiff further stated that her name was mutated and she had been paying rent to the State of Bihar. It is further stated that a part of the land in question was acquired by the State Government and she also received compensation for the same. The plaintiff's claim, therefore, is that the suit property was her self acquired property and has nothing to do with the joint family property. It is further submitted that the sale deed dated 23.6.1976 executed by the defendant 2nd party in favour of defendant no. 1 in respect of 1 Katha and 5 dhurs of Survey Plot No. 740 was a fraudulent document. The plaintiff got knowledge of the aforesaid transaction only on 30.6.1976 and thus instituted this case thereafter for a declaration that the aforesaid sale deed dated 23.6.1976 executed by the defendant 2nd party in favour of defendent no. 1, was void, inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiff.