BHORIDEVI Vs. SUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for the declaration and possession which has been dismissed by both Courts below.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this appeal are these. The suit house originally belonged to one Mangilal who on his death was survived by his widow Mst. Goran alias Mst. Bhuri and his three sons Ganpat, Nandkishore and Chandnarain. A partition of the house in question had taken place, between the sons and the widow of the said Mangilal, on the 23rd September, 1946. At this partition a portion of the house, of which particulars are given in paragraph two of the plaint, fell to the share of Ganpat. Thereafter on the 9th December, 1947, Ganpat, it is alleged, sold his share of the suit house to the plaintiff Roopnarain, for a sum of Rs. 999/- by a registered sale- deed Ex. 1. The case of the plaintiff further was that Ganpat thereafter took the same on rent from the plaintiff on the 11th January, 1949, by a rent-note Ex. 3. Thereafter ganpat and his mother on behalf of herself and her two sons who were minors sold the entire Haveli including the portion which had fallen to the share of Ganpat in favour of Mst. Bhuri and Sua, mother and daughter, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, by a sale-deed. Ex. A-5 dated the 4th November, 1949, and handed over its possession to the vendees on the 5th February, 1950. ' Consequently the plaintiff Roopnarain instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, on the 11th august, 1950, for possession of the portion of the house which had been sold to him by Ganpat by the sale-deed Ex. 1 dated the 9th December, 1947.

(3.) DEFENDANT Ganpat allowed the suit to proceed 'ex parte' against himself. His mother Mst. Bhuri stated that she had sold only her share to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and she had been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. The suit was, however, hotly contested by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the vendees. They denied that any sale had been executed by Ganpat in favour of the plaintiff, and in any case, the latter did not come into possession of it. They also contended that the house had been validly sold to them by and on behalf of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and the minor brothers of Ganpat. They also raised a case of estoppel based on the following facts.