MANOHAR SINGH Vs. MUNNI LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordiante Judge, III, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the learned Sub-Judge decreed the suit being Title Suit No. 91 of 1985.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/respondent in brief as stated in that Chaturi Singh, son of Shiva Singh was the survey recorded raiyat in respect of lands of khata No. 11 of village Kechaki, P.S. Barwadih, District-Palamau, who had two sons, namely, Ghinhu Singh and Kripa Singh and after the death of Chaturi Singh, both the sons Ghinhu Singh and Kripa Singh jointly came in possession of the lands of Khata No. 11. It is further claimed that in about the year 1930, both the sons of Chaturi Singh partitioned the land of each plot of khata No. 11 half and half and accordingly they came in possession over the respective shares. Ghinhu Singh died in about the year 1931 leaving behind his two sons, namely, Ram Tahal Singh and Radha Singh and a genealogical table has also been given, which is as follows:

(3.) The defendants/appellants filed written statement claiming therein that the suit is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation. It is also claimed that Radha Singh, husband of Most. Dhaneshwari Devi died in the year 1943 while partition of the land was effected in the year 1951 and as such Ghinhu Singh never came in exclusive possession of the land in question, Kusba Devi was aged about 11-12 years at the time of death of her father and she died in or about the year 1977. Radha Singh had also a son namely Dukhi Singh, who was born blind and was dependent on his mother. Ram Tahal Singh never came in possession of the land of Dhaneshwari Devi and he had no business to maintain Dhaneshwari Devi at any point of time. The name of Kusba Devi was mutated in the Register of State of Bihar and the rent receipt was also granted in her name. A separate takhta was allotted in favour of defendant No. 1, Dhaneshwari Devi in the year 1951 in course of partition. The plaintiff has got no title and possession over the land in question and the defendant No. 1 executed the deed of gift in favour of defendant No. 2 out of her own free will and volition. She had also executed sale-deeds after payment of consideration money and the sale-deeds were executed after obtaining due permission from the Revenue authorities as required under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. Dukhan Singh, the blind son of defendant No. 1 died issueless in the year 1970 and the plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit.