BAIJNATH SETH Vs. KASHI NATH UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26th June, 1976 and decree dated 8th July, 1976 passed in Title Suit No. 424/5 of 1971/74 by the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, who has decreed the suit with costs against defendants 8 and 9 on contest and without cost ex parte against the rest. The court has declared that the registered sale deed executed by Ram Dahin in favour of Ramnath on 28.6.1969 is without consideration, invalid and inoperative document and also confirmed the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 8 and 9 are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the 1st set of respondents in the present appeal, besides defendants 1st party are respondents 3 to 6 and defendants 2nd party are respondents 7 and 8.

(3.) IN short, the case of the plaintiffs is that there were 10 to 11. Bighas of fertile land in their family and had much saving in every year because of good produce. Defendant no. 1 and Ramdahin Upadhya, father of plaintiff no. 1, used to live together. Defendant no. 1, being cunning and intelligent, had acquired confidence of Ramdahin Upadhya and got him addicted to Ganja, Bhang etc. Defendant no. 1 had also influenced him through immoral means. According to the plaintiffs, defendant no. 1 was the Karta of the family of defendants no. 1 to 4. They had only one bigha of unfertile land and used to work as labourer also for maintenance of his family. It is alleged that defendant no. 1 got the sale deed executed in his favour by Ramdahin Upadhaya without payment of consideration money of Rs. 10,000/ - as indicated by the sale deed and that the recitals in the sale deed regarding the necessity are imaginary, baseless and false. The plaintiffs also mentioned, in detail, as to how the sale deed in question was executed by Ramdahin Upadhaya. It is alleged that defendant no.2, Jamuna Sonar, son of defendant no. 1 was unmarried and as on account of poverty of defendants 1st set, there was no probability of marriage of defendant no.2, defendant no. 1 requested the father of plaintiff no. 1 to execute a sale deed so that he might show that he had got sufficient property which would facilitate the settlement of marriage of defendant no. 2. After marriage defendant no. 1 was to execute a Bajidawa. After marriage of defendant no. 2 when Ramdahin pressed for execution of Bajidawa, defendant no.1 evaded on one pretext or the other and it is alleged that on one day defendant no.1 gave poison to Ramdahin who died on 25.7.1971 for which a criminal case is pending. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, the showy sale deed under the influence of defendant no. 1 was executed by Ramdahin Upadhya without consideration and without delivery of possession and that the sale deed refers to deed of transaction having no effect.