SHEO NANDAN Vs. RAMDHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the suit, out of which the present second appeal arises, relates to the property which admittedly belonged to one Dhuri Mahto, who died before 1928, leaving behind his widow Most. Lakhia, defendant No. 3, and two minor sons Bhagirath and Bhagwan under the guardianship of their mother. In March 1928, Most. Lakhia executed a deed of mortgage Ext. B(2) with respect to the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 1 and in July, 1967 sold the same to the defendants 4 to 6, the appellants in the present appeal, under the registered deed, Ext. C(2). Bhagwan died unmarried in a state of jointness with his brother Bhagirath. Bhagirath was married with Sanichari, defendant No. 2, but unfortunately, he also died young without leaving a child. Most. Sanichari sold the property to the plaintiffs in September 1967. Thus, the present dispute is between the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 to 6, i.e. the vendees from the two ladies.

(2.) According to the case of the plaintiffs Bhagirath died in 1949. The defendants allege that he died as far back as in 1930. The question whether he actually died in 1930 or 1949 does not appear to be material for the purposes of the present appeal.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed the present suit for a decree for redemption. According to the defence case the mortgage was already redeemed by Lakhia. The defendants also challenged the claim of Sanichari to be the wife of Bhagirath, and the sale deed executed by her has been described as fabricated, illegal and inoperative. It has been pleaded that Most. Lakhia inherited the property after the death of her sons and had full right to transfer the same. The defendant No. 2 (Sanichari) supported the plaintiffs.