SHEO PUJAN UPADHIYA Vs. BHAGWAT PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the plaintiffs for the grant of a certificate either under Section 110 or under Section 109(c), Civil P.C. This application arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Mirzapur, for a declaration that the two sale-deeds executed by Mt. Lalta, defendant 5 and Mt. Kausila, defendant 6 in favour of Bhagwat Prasad and three others (defendants 1 to 4) were executed without legal necessity and were not binding upon the reversioners of Nand Kishor Upadhia deceased.

(2.) Plaintiffs alleged that Nand Kishor Upadhia was possessed of an occupancy holding situate in mouza Piprahi comprising an area of 12 bighas, and that he also held a fixed rate holding situate in mouza Bhaja and had also a brit jijmani yielding an income of about Rs. 100 per year. Nand Kishor Upadhia died in 1878 leaving a widow Mt. Lalta, defendant 5. At the time of the execution of the sale- deeds, the bulk of the fixed rate holding appears to have remained in the possession of a usufructuary mortgagee named Parma Nand, who was a member of a joint family with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed to be the reversioners of Nand Kishor Upadhia and denied that Mt. Kausila was the daughter of Nand Kishor Upadhia. They alleged that the property in dispute was worth about Rs. 15,000 and had been sold for an aggregate sum of Rs. 4,730 and that there was no legal necessity for the sales. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs were the reversioners of Nand Kishor Upadhia. They asserted that Mt. Kausila was the daughter of Nand Kishore Upadhia and futher contended that the sales were for adequate consideration and were supported by legal necessity.

(3.) One of the sale-deeds was for Rs. 1,930 and comprised 8 bighas 1 biswa of fixed rate holding in mouza Bhaja. Out of the sale consideration, Rs. 700 was left for payment to Parmanand mortgagee and Rs. 1200 were left for payment to Budh Narain Singh who had obtained, by transfer, the interest of Musai Upadhia under the mortgage, dated Asarh Sudi 5, Sambat 1930. Rs. 30 were paid to the executants for the costs of the execution of the sale-deed. The second sale-deed was executed for Rs. 2,800 and comprised 4 bighas 17 biswas of fixed rate tenure in mouza Bhaja. Out of the sale consideration, Rs. 2,400 were left for payment to Parmanand and others, Rs. 150 were left for payment to Sheo Sahai Upadhia, Rs. 40 for payment to the vendees towards a certain mortgage transaction of an anterior date and Rs. 210 were taken for the expenses of a pilgrimage to Gaya. Both the Courts held that the plaintiffs were the next presumptive reversioners of Nand Kishor Upadhia. They also held that Mt. Kausila was not the daughter of Nand Kishor Upadhia. The Court of first instance held that both the sale-deeds were for full consideration and the money had been taken for legal necessity for payment of antecedent debts and that no part of the sale consideration was farzi or without any necessity.