SIRINIVAS FOGLA Vs. SATYANAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is By the defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for redemption of the Sudbha -rana bond dated the 28th March, 1932, executed by Raghunandan Prasad Sahu alias Ragho, Sahu, son of Ramadhin Sahu (hereinafter called Raghunandan Sahu) in favour of Mohari Bai wife of Kushal Marwari.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that Raghunandan Sahu borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,800/ - from Mohari Bai and executed a Sudbharna bond in ber favour in lieu of interest and gave his two houses mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint as security and put her in possession over the houses as Sudbharnadar. Subsequently, Raghunandan died leaving behind him his two sister's sons Satyanand Gupta and Pandit Bidyanand Vedalankar who were full brothers. On 3rd December, 1950 there was partition between the two brothers by which the two houses along with other properties were allotted to the share of Satyanand Gupta. In 1958 Satya -Band Gupta filed a petition before the Anchal Adhikari, Khagaria for getting his name mutated with regard to the said two houses, but on contest by the defendants the petition was dismissed. Thereafter Satyanand Gupta offered the mortgage money to the defendants and on their refusal filed the present suit, for the reliefs mentioned in the plaint. Mohari Bai is dead and her heirs are the defendants of the suit. Defendants nos. 1 to 4 who are majors filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. Their main defence was that the document executed by Raghunandan Sahu on the 28th March, 1932 in favour of Mohari Bai was deed of sale and not a Sudbharna bond. The houses fell down during the earthquake of 1934 and were reconstructed by Mohari Bai who incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 1,00,000 over their construction to the knowledge of Raghunandan Sahu. Their further case was that in ease it be held that the document dated the 28th March, 1932 was a Sudbharna bond, then it has been extinguished by the conduct of the parties. They also pleaded adverse possession, estoppel and acquiescence. According to defendants nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiff was neither the Bhagina of Raghunandan Sahu nor was he his heir and legal representative. The Guardian -ad -litem filed a formal written statement on behalf of the minor defendants supporting the case of the major defendants.

(3.) The plaint of the present suit as originally filed, contained the following reliefs: - -