DHAN KANWAR Vs. RAJU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff Mst. Dhan Kanwar in a suit for declaration and possession.

(2.) THE dispute relates to a certain agricultural land measuring 43 odd Bighas bearing Khasra No. 98 in village Gangatpura in the former State of Bundi. THE case of the plaintiff was that one Bhanwarlal was her agent or mukhtar and had been working as such for about twenty years or so. This Bhanwarlal was the father-in-law of the contesting respondent Mst. Rajubai and died some time in 1947. Madho Meena was the Khatedar of the land in dispute. He had made a mortgage with respect to this land in favour of the appellant Dhan Kanwar for a sum of Rs. 175/- by a registered deed dated the 6th March, 1941. THE plaintiff's case further was that Madho had taken other loans from her from time to time, the total amounting in all to a sum of Rs. 1158/ -. Madho died without being able to pay off the debts. THEreafter Madho's heirs, namely his son Ramkishen and his widow Mst. Bhuli, realising their inability to liquidate the debt, executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff on the 22nd June, 1946, with respect to the land in dispute. THE plaintiff had always understood that the sale was in her own favour, but after Bhanwarlal's death who was apparently managing the entire land on behalf of the plaintiff, she found that the daughter-in-law of Bhanwarlal, Mst. Raju, had put herself in possession of a half portion of the said land. THE plaintiff required Mst. Raju to give up her unauthorised possession as, according to the former, the entire consideration for the sale had been provided by her; but Mst. Raju refused to do so, and it was then that she was informed that the sale-deed executed by Ramkishan and Mst. Bhuli was not only in favour of Mst. Dhan Kanwar but in favour of Mst. Raju also. THE plaintiff's case, put briefly, therefore, was that Bhanwarlal deceased had managed to have the sale-deed executed in favour of Mst. Raju by fraud and entirely without the consent or knowledge of the former. Consequently the plaintiff instituted the present suit on the 14th October, 1949, in which she has prayed for declaration that she alone is the exclusive owner of the field in dispute and that the contesting defendant respondent Mst. Rajubai has no right or interest therein and she has further prayed for possession of the half portion of the land of which Mst. Raju had taken unlawful possession.

(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the trial! court acted improperly in refusing to issue summonses for the plaintiff's witness Ramkaran on the 7th November, 1951 and also in declining to give at least one more opportunity to the plaintiff to examine herself in her evidence in the circumstances of the case, and that thereby she has been prejudiced and this case has not had a proper trial. i