RAMSAROOP SINGH Vs. HIRALALL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the deed of sale dated 1st of July, 3931, executed by Madhukuer and defendant Nos. 1 to 4, in the name of Harihar Singh the deed of sale dated 13th of January, 1943, executed by Nathuni Singh and Munshi Singh in the name of Punit Singh; two deeds of sale dated 13th of September, 1945 and 14th of September, 1946, executed by Punit Singh in the name of Ramsaroop Singh and Pargash Singh, respectively; the deed of sale dated 13 h September, 1946, executed by Bila Kuer and Ratuna Kuer in the name of Ramsaroop Sinqh; and the deed of sale dated 13th , f Sep ember, 1946, executed by Bala Kuer and Ratuna Kuer in the name of Pargas Singh, in all six saie deeds, are executed without legal necessity said without consideration and are not binding upon the estate, or upon the reversioners to the estate, of Janakdhari Singh. The plaintiff claims to be one of the reversioners to the estate of Janakdhari Singh and releis upon the following genealogy in support of his relationship with Janakdhari : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_319_AIR(PAT)_1958Html1.htm</FRM> The maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff died on 16th August, 1944 leaving behind her three daughters, defendants Nos. 2 to 4, and seven maternal grandsons including the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 10 to 13 and 16. The mother of the plaintiff, Sheo Kuer, is dead. Beasi Kuer, mother of defendant Tulsi Singh is also dead. The case of the plaintiff was that when he went to his Nanihal on the occasion of the Sradh ceremony of Mt. Madhu Kuer, he learnt that Harihar Singh, father-in-law of Ratuna Kuer and Samdhi of Madhu Kuer, who was a frequent visitor to village Shikaria and looked after the affairs of Madhu Kuer, persuaded the latter to execute a nominal deed of sale in respect of most of the properties of the estate of Janakdhari Singh. Punit Singh, defendant No. 7, also practised fraud and set up a false and fraudulent claim to 6 bighas & 7 kathas 1 dhur of kast land. Accordingly, he obtained certified copies of the sale deeds from the registry office which bore dates 1st July, 1931 and 13th January, 1943. On a perusal of the documents, he found that the deed dated 1st of July, 1931, was exe- cuted by his maternal grand-mother, Mt. Madhu Kuer, and defendant Nos. 1 to 4, viz., his own brother Mehi Lall Singh and the three living sisters of his mother, namely, Mt. Mit Kuer, Mt. Bala Kuer and Mt. Ratuna Kuer, in respect of 6 bighas 7 kathas 1 dhur of land with false recital of payment of consideration. The deed of sale dated 13th January. 1943, was executed collusively and fraudulently by defendants Nos. 5 and 6, who were sons of Harihar Singh in favour of another son of Harihar Singh, namely, Punit Singh (defendant No. 7) in respect of 2.62 acres of kaslit land. The plaintiff gave further details of the other sale deeds in respect of the properties covered thereunder. The suit was contested mainly by defendant No. 7, Punit Singh. Defendant Nos. 8 and 9 also contested the suit and so did defendant No. 1, the brother of the plaintiff, alleging that he was the adonted son of Janakdhari Singh. He challenged, however, the genuineness of the sale deed dated 1st July, 1931. A written statement was also filed on behalf of the minor defendants challenging the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff. De- fendant No. 16, however, supported the plain- tiff.

(2.) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge IV, Patna, decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was a daughter's son of Uttim Singh and sister's son of Janakdhari Singh and all the six sale deeds impugned by him were executed without legal necessity and, as such, were not binding on him. Defendant Nos. 7 to 9, who mainly contested the suit, were saddled with costs payable to the plaintiff. This appeal has been brought to this Court by defendants Ramsaroop Singh and Pargas Singh against the decision of the Court below.

(3.) The principal question raised on behalf of the appellants is that in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of 1956) the suit of the plaintiff will not be maintainable. In support of that contention, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to a number of reported and unreported decisions of this Court wherein it has been held that after the passing of Act 30 of 1956 (Hindu Succession Act, 1956) reversionary right has Come to an end under the Hindu Law and a suit by a reversioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, in the present case, after the death of Madhu Kuer, Mit Kuer, Bala Kuer and Ratuna Kuer, defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, inherited the estate of Janakdhari Singh as sisters under Act 2 of 1929 and, after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, they held the properties as absolute owners, and the plaintiff, whose mother died long before, had no locus standi to maintain the suit. The reported decisions referred to are Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghunath Missir, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 480 (A) and Mt. Janki Kuer v. Chhathu Prasad, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 674 (B). The decision in the case of Mt. Janki Kuer is based on the case of Ram Ajodhya Missir. It is, no doubt, true that both these decisions support the contention raised on behalf of the appellants and, ordinarily, I would not enter into a detailed discussion of the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent as the two above decisions, which are Bench decisions, are binding upon me. In the present case, however, learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that in view of numerous decisions of the other High Courts holding a contrary view, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to do so as I am satisfied that the view adopted in our High Court in numerous cases, reported and un-reported, lays down the law correctly. I would, however, deal with the contentions pressed before us which have found favour with the Hon'ble Judges of some other High Courts in order to find out whether a reference to a larger Bench would be justified. In order to appreciate the contentions therefore, it may be worthwhile to reproduce here Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 :