GHASIRAM & ORS. Vs. BRIJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-appellant-Phaili Ram, since dead, had preferred the instant civil regular first appeal against the judgment & decree, dated Feb. 24, 1983 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the suit for possession of immovable property and damages instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, was decreed. After the death of Phaili Ram, his legal representatives were brought on record. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter in the same mariner as they were arrayed in the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for possession and compensation against the defendants with the averments that one Manohar Lal purchased ,o some property in an auction sale. On April 9, 1964, Manohar Lal bequeathed the entire property including the disputed house in favour of his wife-Jadav. After the death of Manohar Lal, Jadav became owner of the said property. On Feb. 14, 1968, Jadav donated 3/4th part of the said house her grand son Ram Charan by executing a registered gift - deed. Ram Charan accepted the gift and became the owner. On March 30, 1968, Ram Charan and Jadav jointly executed a sale-deed transferring their respective shares of the property in favour of plaintiff. At that time Defendant Phalli Ram son of Manohar Lal was residing in the disputed house with the permission of Jadav. Jadav and Ram Charan promised the plaintiff that they would persuade defendant to vacate the portion but the defendant refused to vacate it and filed a civil suit on Nov. 6. 1970 in the court of Civil Judge, Garigapur City, seeking cancellation of afore quoted will, gift-deed and sale-deed. The suit was dismissed on July 5, 1972. The judgment became final as the defendant did not prefer any appeal against it.

(3.) The defendant submitted written statement denying the averments of made in the plaint, it was pleaded by the defendant that no gift-deed or will was ever executed in favour of Ram Charan and Jadav. Jadav did not obtain probate against the alleged will. The plaintiff did not purchase the disputed house. The defendant became the owner of the house on the basis of his adverse possession over it. The suit was time barred and it was under valued.