GANESH JHA Vs. BAIDYANATH JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the plaintiff asked for a declaration that he is the next reversioner to the estate of Balkhandi Jha and that the sale-deed dated 18-3-1941, executed by his widow, Musammat Arjanwati, was without legal necessity and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff also asked for recovery of possession over the land mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint which was the subject-matter of the sale-deed executed by the widow Musammat Arjanwati. The case of the plaintiff was that Becha Jha and Balkhandi Jha were the sons of one Shambhu Jha and that Musammat Arjanwati was the widow of Balkhandi Jha. It was alleged that after the death of Balkhandi Jha, his widow Musammat Arjanwati was maintained by the plaintiff's father, and thereafter she was maintained by the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 were the next reversioners of Balkhandi Jha, and the sale-deed executed by Musammat Arjanwati on 18-3-1941, in favour of defendant No. 1 was not for legal necessity and not binding upon the plaintiff. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 on the ground that the sale-deed was a bona fide transaction and was genuine and executed for consideration and for legal necessity and was, therefore, binding upon the plaintiff. The plea of res judicata was also raised and it was contended that in a previous title suit, namely, Title Suit No. 193 of 1942, the question of validity of the sale-deed was put in issue and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that it was not genuine and was not for consideration.

(2.) The learned Munsif held upon these rival contentions that the sale-deed of defendant No. 1 was genuine and for consideration. He further held that the plaintiff was the next reversioner of Balkhandi Jha and the sale-deed was executed for legal necessity and was binding upon the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly dismissed by the learned Munsif.

(3.) On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the sale-deed executed by Musammat Arjanwati was executed without legal necessity and was, therefore, not binding upon the plaintiff. He accordingly allowed the appeal and granted a decree to the plaintiff for recovery of possession over the lands mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint.