BHAMA Vs. PAGGAN PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 40/20 of 1956 by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Monghyr. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought in respect of a house in plot No. 169 of khata no. 69 situated in tauzi no, 4507 having an area of 1 katha 12 dhurs. The plaintiff alleged that the house belonged to one Munshi Pandit who had a son by name Posan Pandit Posan Pandit died in 1939 leaving his widow, Mt. Bhama, who is the defendant-appellant before this Court. Munshi Pandit died in 1948. His widow, Mt. Jhamia succeeded to the property left by Munshi Pandit. She had incurred debts to meet the expenses of the Sradh of her deceased husband, for payment of which she executed a mortgage bond on 8-7-1949, in favour of Dharnidhar Sahu for Rs. 700/- in respect of the disputed house. She executed a sale deed on 11-5-1955, for Rs. 800/- in respect of the same property in favour of the plaintiff. This money was taken to pay the mortgage debt and for some other necessary expenses. The plaintiff took possession of the house after his purchase, and Mt. Jhamia went to live with her daughter in another village. The plaintiff's further case is that the present defendant, the widow of the deceased son of Munshi Pandit, lived in one room of the disputed house with the permission of the plaintiff, but subsequently she raised a dispute at the instigation of some persons inimically disposed towards the plaintiff, and, in consequence, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started. That ended in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession and ejectment of the defendant from the disputed house.

(2.) The defence was that Munshi Pandit had two more brothers and all the three brothers owned the suit house which was their ancestral property. After the death of Posan Pandit, the defendant remained in the same house with the father-in-law and mother-in-law. After the death of Munshi Pandit, his widow Mt. Jhamia and the defendant continued to live together in the house. The plaintiff in collusion with Mt. Jhamia took a mortgage bond in favour of one of his men, and later on got a sale deed in his favour. Both the deeds were challenged as collusive and without consideration. She claimed to have performed the Sradh ceremony of her father-in-law as well as of her mother-in-law as Mt. Jhamia died in the meanwhile. She claims to have been succeeded to the property of her husband and father-in-law. A more substantial defence was raised that Mt. Jahmia had no right to sell away the suit property to the plaintiff, and, as such, the plaintiff has acquired no title thereby.

(3.) The learned Munsif decreed the plaintiffs suit rejecting the defence in its entirety and passed a decree for eviction of the defendant.