RAM CHANDRA PASI Vs. RAM NEWAJ PASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been placed for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/appellant has put the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2009, passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge-III, West Champaran at Bettiah, in Title Appeal No. 61 of 1990, whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1990 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Munsif, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 236 of 1987. The suit was filed for cancellation of sale deeds dated 06.08.1952 and 06.02.1953, executed by Chhatiya Devi in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property, and for declaration of plaintiff's title and possession over the suit property.

(2.) It was the case of the plaintiff/appellant that one Halkhori Mahto @ Pasi had two sons, namely, Gopal Pasi and Badar Pasi. Gopal Pasi had three sons, namely, Deoki Pasi, Narayan Pasi and Shiv Pasi whereas Badar Pasi had only one son Heera Pasi. All the three sons of Gopal Pasi were living jointly, with Deoki Mahto @ Deoki Pasi a Karta of the family. While in jointness, they had acquired 1 bigha 15 dhur of land. In 1945, Narayan pasi @ Narayan Mahto died in jointness leaving behind his daughter Chhatiya devi. Deoki Pasi also died in jointness in 1950, leaving behind his widow Maniya and daughter Marachhiya, who had one son, Jaglal. Accordingly, Shiv Mahto @ Shiv Pasi, father of the plaintiff acquired exclusive right and title over the entire property since 1950. The plaintiff's father, namely, Shiv Mahto died in 1975 and after death of Shiv Mahto, the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the suit property, being the only surviving legal heir. It was only in 1987 that defendants started claiming their right and title over the suit property on the basis of the sale deeds executed on 06.08.1952 and 06.02.1953 by Chhatia Devi, the daughter of late Narayan Pasi and started causing disturbance in peaceful enjoyment of the suit property by the appellant which gave rise to cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. While admitting the genealogy as asserted by the plaintiff, they denied the factum of the jointness in the family. They asserted that Narayan Pasi and Deoki Mahto and Shiv Mahto were not living in jointness as asserted in the plaint, rather they were separate.