RAM PRAVESH ROY Vs. RAJMATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) had brought T.S.No.112 of 1986 for declaration of their title on the suit land fully detailed in the plaint schedule as well as for declaration that the different registered sale deeds executed on different dates (fully detailed in plaint schedule ) said to be executed by defendant No.1 Most Tapeshwari (now dead) in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 ( who are appellants s herein) are sham and forged transactions without consideration and competency to execute. As such, not binding on the plaintiffs and declaration that no title passed to the defendants in pursuance of those forged sale deeds.

(2.) The case and claim of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the pleading is that the cadastral survey recorded tenant Kodai Teli died leaving behind his only son Shiv Shankar Sah, the husband of the plaintiff No.3 Gharbharni Devi. During his lifetime, Shiv Shankar Sah alongwith Gharbharni Devi had executed different registered deed of gifts in favour of plaintiff No.1 Rajmati Devi who was granddaughter in relation as well as in favour of plaintiff No.2 Ram Pravesh Sah who was husband of plaintiff Rajmati Devi. The donees accepted the gift and came in possession of the gifted property. In the month of January, 1986, the defendants started threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess from the suit land, subsequently, the plaintiffs, on enquiry, came to know that some fictitious lady pretending herself to be Tapeshwari Devi, (defendant No.1) has created certain forged sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 to put wrongful claim on the land of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that they started putting claim that Shiv Shankar Sah had a brother Prasad Sah and Most. Tapeshwari is daughter of Prasad Sah . As such, after death of Prasad Sah, she was legal heir and successor of Prasad Sah. In fact, Most Tapeshwari was daughter of Ram Lagan Sah, a co-villager.

(3.) It is worth to mention here that the learned trial court framed issue No.7 and decided that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land as per the admission of P.W.5 and no prayer was there, for recovery of possession . Hence, the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act . In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiffappellants s filed a petition at the appellate stage in T.A.No. 17 of 1993 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint incorporating relief for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and if found dispossessed for recovery of possession on the suit land. The learned lower appellate court refused the prayer on 27.09.1997 for amendment. The plaintiffs challenged the same before this Court in Civil Revision No.1838 of 1997. This Court allowed the prayer for amendment on 06.02.1998 with following observation in para-4 of the order: