LAL MOHAN DHUPI Vs. RAM LAKHMI DASSYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Ram Lakhmi is one of the daughters of one Basiram Dhupi by his first wife. Defendant 1 Joy Lakshmi is Basiram's daughter by his second wife Mani Dhupini. Plaintiff's mother died first, then died Basiram in July 1904. Govinda Dhupi, father of defendants 2 and 3, was a brother of Basiram. In November 1904 Mani Dhupini executed a deed of partition in favour of Govinda admitting that the properties in suit belonged to Basiram and Govinda in equal shares. In 1917 defendant 1, Joy Lakshmi, instituted a suit in the Munsif's Court at Munshigunj, against Govinda and Mani and another person to whom Govinda had sold some of the properties; and she impleaded the plaintiff Ram Lakhmi in that suit as pro forma defendant. She alleged that Govinda had no share in the properties, that the deeds of partition and sale were fraudulent and collusive and that the same were not binding on her. Govinda's defence in that suit was that he had an 8 annas share in the properties and the deeds challenged were valid and operative. The plaintiff Ram Lakhmi did not enter appearance as a party in that suit, but figured as a witness therein, and in the deposition that she gave she supported Govinda's defence. The Munsif on 28 November 1917 passed a decree in that suit in these terms: The disputed land is declared to have been included in the estate of Basiram Dhupi and the deed of partition executed by defendants 1 (i.e. Mani) and 4 (i.e. Govinda) are declared not to be binding on the plaintiff (i.e. Joy Lakshmi).

(2.) Mani Dhupini died in 1925. Earn Lakshmi then instituted the present suit against her stepsister Joy Lakshmi as defendant 1, Govinda's sons as defendants 2 and 3 and certain other persons who are transferees of some of the properties from Govinda or his sons as the other defendants.

(3.) The suit has been decreed by the Court below. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in this appeal.