SADHU SARAN AHIR Vs. SHEO PRASAD KANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by two minor plaintiffs, Sheo Prasad Kami and Ram Naresh Kanu, through next friend Mt. Mamva, their aunt, for a declaration that three deeds of transfer, one of them dated the 31st January, 1947, and the remaining two dated the 31st December. 1946, executed by their mother Mt. Sheobachni (defendant No 6) in favour of defendants first and second parties were illegal, fraudulent, without consideration and without legal necessity and the defendants could not claim any title in respect of the properties covered by them, The plaintiffs are sons of one Guru Charan Kanu who died about the year 1944. Mt. Sheobachni, their mother, married one Rup Chand Kanu of village Dihri in sagai form and left the plaintiffs" house to live with him. She had no connection with the person or property of the plaintiffs who began to live with their aunt, Mt. Manwa. Defendants first and second parties, who also belong to the village of the plaintiffs, viz. Chakia, and were gotias, in collusion with one another and out of fraudulent and dishonest motive, induced and defrauded defendant No. 6 and managed to obtain the three instruments of transfer in their favour conveying to them the said properties. On these allegations in the main, the plaintiffs claimed the relief of declaration that the three documents were null and void and prayed for recovery of possession of the properties of which they were dispossessed by the defendants first and second parties on foot of the three sale deeds in their favour referred to above. They also prayed for mesne profits which were assessed at a sum of Rs. 964/4/-, prior to the institution of the suit and also up to the date of recovery of possession.

(2.) Defendants first and second parties denied the allegations in the plaint. It was alleged that defendant No. 6 had not married Rup Chand Kanu hut that she was living still with her minor sons and that she had executed the three documents for herself and for her two minor sons for valid legal necessity as the two children were cripples and needed money for their treatment, Defendant No. 6, accordingly, after having executed the three documents, received the consideration mentioned therein and duly put the defendants first and second parties in possession. Out of dishonest motive, however, she herself subsequently brought the present suit in the name of her two minor sons making Mt. Manwa a guardian of the plaintiffs. The suit was accordingly fit to be dismissed. Defendant No. 6 did not file any written statement but she was examined as D.W. 1 and in her statement in Court she supported the case of the plaintiffs that she was defrauded by the defendants first and second parties to execute the three impugned sale deeds.

(3.) The learned Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit holding that there was no justifying necessity for the sale deeds nor had consideration passed thereunder. The Court also held that defendant No. 6 had remained and was living in village Dihri and was not looking after the interest of the two minor plaintiffs. In view of the findings recorded by him, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants have preferred this appeal to this Court against the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge.