MAHTAB DEVI Vs. NARAYANAN SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been, filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned court of appeal below.

(2.) THIS second appeal arises out of title suit No. 113 of 1981 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant with respect to the suit properties detailed in Schedule-2 of the plaint, namely 3 acres 14 decimals of land appertaining to various khesras of Khata No. 151, Tauzi No. 14066, Thana No. 235, situated in village Mohiuddinpur Geelani, under Asthanwa Police Station within the district of Nalanda for the following reliefs :- (i) a declaration that the plaintiff had full right, title and interest in the suit property; (ii) cost of the suit: (iii) any other reliefs to which the plaintiff is decemed entitled.

(3.) THE claim of the plaintiff was that she was the wife of Saudi Sao (defendant No. 4)who was resident of another place, but he settled in Mohiuddinpur Geelani under asthanwa Police Station in the district of nalanda. She further claimed that he had no ancestral property but his exclusive personal business flourished and out of the income of his said business he purchased several properties including the suit properties by registered deeds dated 4-8-1956 (Ext-2 series) from the admitted owner in his own name, whereafter he came in exclusive possession as absolute owner thereof and was duly recorded in the revenue records and got Government receipts on payment of Malguzari. The plaintiff also averred that the first wife of Saudi Sao, namely dhano Devi. died much earlier leaving behind a son Narayan Sao (defendant No. 1), whereafter Saudi Sao married the plaintiff from whom he got four sons and two daughters, ft is also the plaintiffs claim that about year 1949 the said Narayan Sao along with wife and children separated from his father saudi Sao and since then Narayan Sao was doing his separate business and had been living separately. The plaintiff further claimed that Saudi Sao dealt with the purchased properties throughout as absolute owner and executed a mortgage deed (Rehan dekhla) on 3-12-1966 which was also duly registered in favour of Jichho Devi for Rs. 1500. 00 and in the said deed Narayan sao (defendant No. i) signed as a witness. It is also averred by the plaintiff that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the said Saudi sao executed deed of gift dated 15-9-1976 (Ext-3) with respect to the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and got it registered and handed over the possession of the same to the plaintiff who since then is in exclusive possession of the gifted properties as absolute owner thereof. The plaintiff also claimed that defendant No. 1 Narayan Sao and his children (defendants Nos. 2 and 3)had no tolerance towards the plaintiff and her children and they had been harassing the plaintiff, her husband and her children and when in the year 1976 she applied for mutation of her name on the basis of registered deed of gift she learnt that defendant no. 1 has got his name recorded 'bala Bala' without any notice of information to the plaintiff or her husband but when the plaintiff filed an objection before the mutation authorities an inquiry was made and plaintiff was found in possession of the suit premises on the basis of which the receipt issued in favour of defendant No. 1 was cancelled and it was ordered that the name of saudi Sao, the husband of the plaintiff, should be allowed to remain recorded as before. Further claim of the plaintiff is that after the aforesaid gift she paid the mortgage amount and got the above mentioned mortgage redeemed in her favour. The plaintiff also stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, defendant No. 1 tried to cast a doubt on the right title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit, properties and hence it was necessary for her to file the instant suit for declaration of her title over the suit properties.