JAGGARNATH SINGH Vs. LAXMI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed for declaration that the disputed land described in Sch. 3 of the plaint is the purchased Kast land of the plaintiff, while the land of Sch. 5 is in her possession on the basis of a Mahadanama by way of part performance of contract and the defendants have no concern with the same. A prayer was also made that it be declared that the deed of gift from defendant No. 1 is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff. Another relief that was sought for was for a decree confirming the possession of the plaintiff over the properties described in Schedules 3 and 5 of the plaint and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession.

(2.) Shortly stated, the case of the plaintiff was that Ram Prasad Singh died in jointness with Ramjit Singh and sons of Kanhai Singh about 50 years ago sometime in the year 1926. It is said that Ramjit Singh and Kanhai Singh's sons came in possession of the properties held by Ram Prasad Singh by virtue of survivorship as his wife Asbhaga Kuer was only a maintenance holder. Further according to the plaintiff, there was a partition between Ranjit Singh and sons of Kanhai Singh in the year 1931 and as a result of that partition the properties were divided half and half. Schedule 1 to the plaint details the properties allotted to the Takhta of Ranjit Singh whereas Schedule 2 mentions the properties in the line of Kanhai Singh. Schedule 2 properties were again subjected to partition with which we are not concerned in this litigation. The plaintiff claims that she acquired Schedule 3 properties by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14-3-1951 executed by Ranjit Singh in favour of the plaintiff. This land mentions 6 bighas 12 kathas 17 dhurs. This sale according to the plaintiff was in the Benami name of Raghubansh but he never came in possession and the plaintiff, who was the real purchaser was put in possession. With regard to Schedule 5 properties, it was said that Ranjit Singh intended to transfer the land covered under this schedule to the plaintiff. There was a contract between the parties to that effect and a Mahadanama was executed. Part of the consideration was also paid and the plaintiff was put in possession. But before a sale deed could be executed, he died issueless sometime in the year 1965. With regard to Schedule 4 properties, the plaintiffs case was that the transfer made by Asbhaga Kuer in favour of defendant No. 1 was illegal, void as she was only a maintenance holder and as such, was not competent to transfer any part of the properties left by Ram Prasad Singh. Further according to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 set up an imposture and got a deed of gift executed and registered purporting to have been executed by Asbhaga Kuer.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants. Their defence inter alia, was that Ram Prasad died in 1940 while he was separate from this brothers, and, as such, it was said that his widow Asbhaga Kuer was not a mere maintenance holder but was a limited owner. till 1956 and thereafter she became absolute owner. On that basis it was said that she was competent to deal with the properties. With regard to Schedule 3 properties, the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 was described as forged and fabricated. It was also said that Ranjit Singh had no right to alienate these properties as the land covered by the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 did not fall in his Takhta on partition. The Mahadanama covering Schedule 5, properties was also described as fabrication. It was said that neither any consideration passed under this Mahadanama nor the plaintiff was put in possession of the properties covered by it. Schedule 4 properties which were said to have been gifted by Asbhaga Kuer in favour of defendant No. 1 on 14-4-1952 was said to be genuine legal and valid. It was again stated that Ram Prasad Singh having died in separation, Asbhaga Kuer came in possession of the properties and, as such, was competent to pass on the properties by way of gift to defendant No. 1. The other significant defence was the incompetency of the suit on account of non-joinder of Mahali (who was examined as D.W. 6 and gave her name as Raj Mahal, daughter of Ranjit Singh).