RAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. HARENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13th May, 1977 passed by Sri Raj Kishore Sharma, 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 56/5 of 1969/1977 whereby he has been pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiffsappellants in part on contest against defendant nos. 1 and 2 and on compromise against defendant no. 3 and declared plaintiffs ' title with respect to the properties described in Schedule IV of the plaint and with regard to the properties described in Schedule I to III of the plaint, the learned Subordinate Judge declared the title of the plaintiffs which were not covered under the deeds of gift dated 22.2.69 executed by Ramadhar Singh in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs -appellants, in brief, is that one Narsingh Singh was the father of original plaintiff no. 1 Ramadhar Singh. Original Plaintiff no. 2 Smt. Swaro Devi was the mother of Ramadhar Singh.

(2.) The said Narsingh Singh died In the year 1942 leaving behind him his widow Smt. Sawaro Devi (original plaintiff No. 2) and his only son Ramadhar Singh (original plaintiff no. 1). The father of plaintiff no. 1. namely, Narsingh Singh possessed zamindari interest to the extent of one pai 13 kauri in Tauzi no. 4248 of village Dhonekhurd and Karanpura. Besides that he possessed the dihbasgit land with house in village Done. The tauzi also comprised of bakast land. After vesting of zamindari, the bakast land of the above mentioned tauzi became "kast lands" of the original plaintiff, the details of which has been given in Schedule I of the plaint. The dihbasgit land belonging to Narsingh Singh has been described in Schedule II of the plaint. After the death of Narsingh Singh, both the original plaintiffs Ramadhar Singh and Smt. Sawaro Devi inherited Schedule I and II properties, each having half share in the property. Accordingly, they came in possession of the property and remained in continuous possession. Further case of the plaintiffs is that original plaintiff no. 2 Smt. Sawaro Devi purchased lands from Inguri Devi and others from her personal money which she got from her Naihar through registered sale deed dated 4.9.63. Although she had purchased the said land from her personal income but she purchased the lands in the name of plaintiff no. 1 Ramadhar Singh, who was her only son and in spite of the fact that the said deed was in the name of Ramadhar Singh, he was never in possession of the land purchased from Inguri Devi nor he had any right title over the said land which exclusively belonged to original plaintiff no. 2.The said lands have been described in Schedule III of the plaint. Further case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no. 1 Ramadhar Singh was an illiterate and foolish person and was living in bad company. He was suffering from epilepsy (Mirgi) and was addicted to Ganja and Bhang. It is further said that under the influence of Ganja and Bhang he always used to loose his senses. Defendant no. 3 Bashishtha Singh had negotiated with the said Ramadhar Singh to purchase 5 Katthas of land appertaining to Plot no. 1025 of village Karanpura for consideration of Rs. 2000/ - and after that Bashishth Singh took Ramadhar Singh alongwith his friend Shri Kishun Prasad, Ram Deo Harijan and Khobhari Singh to Mairwa Registration Office and got the stamp purchased in the name of Ramadhar Singh and handed over the same to deed writer Kishun Prasad. Thereafter, defendant no. 3 and his above mentioned friends took thumb impression of Ramadhar Singh on stamp paper and gave instruction to the Scribe for execution of the deed. After that all the above mentioned persons took Ramadhar Singh to market and administered some intoxicants in the breakfast offered to Ramadhar Singh, as a result of which, Ramadhar Singh lost his senses and then they all came to registration office where the sale deed was executed, attested and presented for registry. It is said that Ramadhar Singh admitted the execution of the sale deed before the SubRegistrar and handed over registration receipt to defendant no. 3 after making endorsement over the same. Regarding the payment of consideration money, defendant no. 3 assured the said Ramadhar Singh that the payments would be made at his house. Since Ramadhar Singh had complete faith on defendant no. 3, as such, he did not raise any objection but the consideration money was not paid to Ramadhar Singh by defendant no. 3 inspite of repeated demands. After the execution and registration of the sale deed, the defendant no. 3 disclosed that he had purchased the house and the land of the original plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed executed by Ramadhar Singh in his favour and when the fact of sale and purchase came to the knowledge of original plaintiff no. 2 Smt. Sawaro Devi, who happened to be the mother of Ramadhar Singh, she obtained certified copy of the aforesaid sale deed and learnt that defendant no. 3 had obtained sale deed from Ramadhar Singh with respect to 3 Katthas 9 -1/2 dhur of valuable homestead land situated In market place described in Schedule IV of the plaint. It has been stated that actually the valuation of the land was not less than rupees twenty thousand which could not have been sold for only rupees two thousand as consideration money. It has further been stated that defendant no. 3 had obtained the said sale deed from Ramadhar Singh while he was in the state of intoxication and by practising fraud upon him for which original defendant no. 1 Ramadhar Singh had filed a criminal case under Sections 420. and 467 of the Indian Penal Code on 11.8.69 in the court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Siwan, against defendant no. 3 and others and the Sub - Divisional Magistrate had sent the case to the Court of Sri D. P. Sinha, Magistrate for enquiry.

(3.) FURTHER case of the plaintiffs is that Paras Singh, who is a cunning man and shrewd litigant was trying to grab their property. He persuaded Ramadhar Singh to file an appeal against the order of Sub - Divisional Magistrate sending the complaint for enquiry to Sri D. P. Sinha, Magistrate and on that pretext the said Paras Singh took Ramadhar Singh to Chapra alongwith Jamadar Singh, who was his friend. Ramadhar Singh had no experience of fighting litigation and for the first time he visited Chapra and taking advantage of inexperience of Ramadhar Singh, Paras Singh took his thumb impression on several blank stamp papers on the pretext that the same were required for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Sessions Judge. Original plaintiff no. 2 Smt. Sawaro Devi had no knowledge about the above mentioned facts but when Paras Singh returned home, he disclosed that he had obtained deeds of gifts from Ramadhar Singh and then the original plaintiff obtained certified copy of the deeds of gift and came to know that on 22.2.69 Paras Singh had fraudulently obtained forged and fabricated gift deeds appertaining to lands described in Schedule V of the plaint in the name of defendant nos. 1 and 2, both minor sons of Abhinandan Singh of village Ahirauli Baghal situated at a distance of 16 miles from the plaintiffs ' village. It has been stated that the sister of Paras Singh is married to Rabindra Singh, elder brother of defendant nos. 1 and 2. Abhinandan Singh, father of defendant nos. 1 and 2 is related to Paras Singh and, so, Paras Singh managed to get deed of gift executed. It is said that the deeds of gift dated 22.2.69 executed by Ramadhar Singh in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 are illegal, forged, fabricated and without consideration and not binding upon the plaintiffs. It is further said that Ramadhar Singh had not executed the deeds of gift in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2, who were never related to the original plaintiffs and neither defendant nos. 1 and 2 nor their parents had ever served the plaintiffs. The deeds of gift were neither read over nor explained to Ramadhar Singh nor Ramadhar Singh put his thumb impression or signature on any said deeds. He also did not ask any person to attest the said deeds of gift. It is further said that Ramadhar Singh never presented the deeds of gift before the Registrar for registration nor he admitted the execution of the deeds of gift and there was every likelihood that Paras Singh might have manufactured the deeds of gift and he might have converted the blank stamp papers on which he had obtained thumb impression of Ramadhar Singh for bringing the forged deeds of gift in existence and the said Paras Singh might have presented the said forged deeds of gift before the Registrar for registration. It has been stated that through the said gift deeds or through the sale deed the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have neither acquired any title nor they are in possession of the suit land, rather, the present plaintiffs being the agnates of the original plaintiff no. 1 Ramadhar Singh are entitled to inherit the suit properties.