LUKHAN CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. TAKIM DHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter in the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, is a tenure created on the 25 February 1881, by the proprietor of Chuck Ula Kalijuga appertaining to Tauzi No. 57 of the Collectorate of Khulna. The proprietary interest, which, at that time was vested in Suryyakanta Bai Chaudhuri, has since been transferred to Jogendra Chandra Ghosh and others. The case for the plaintiff is that the tenure was granted to one Idu Sana; while the case for the defendants is that the grant was made in favour of his son Bhudai Sana. The relationship of the parties will appear from the annexed genealogical table:

(2.) Idu Sana left three sons, Niamat Chand and Budhai who inherited the properties left by him in equal shares, Niamat left a son (defendant No. 5) and two daughters (defendants Nos. 8 and 10). Chand left two sons (defendants Nos. 6 and 7) and two daughters (defendants Nos. 10 and 11). The daughters are alleged to have relinquished their interest in favour of their respective brothers, and it may be taken for the purposes of this litigation that whatever estate was left by Idu Sana passed to his grandsons alone. On the 14 November, 1906, Budhai sold the entire tenure to the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 1600, on the assumption that his nephews had no interest therein. On the 26 January, 1917, the fifth, sixth and seventh defendants conveyed a two-thirds share of the tenure to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,000, on the assumption that it was the joint property of their respective fathers and of their uncle. On the 6 November, 1918 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of joint possession on declaration of title by purchase, for partition, and for incidental reliefs. The plaintiff joined with the prayer for possession, an alternative prayer for recovery of the purchase-money from his vendors, should the Court ultimately hold against him on the question of title. The brothers and sisters of the first defendant were brought on the record as defendants (defendants Nos. 2--4 and 12--15 in order that they might have an opportunity to oppose the claim and might be bound by any decree in favour of the plaintiff. The claim was, however, contested by the first defendant alone, who disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff as well as of his vendors. The principal issues framed on the pleadings ware as follows: (1) Did Idu Sana or his son Budhai Sana take settlement of the laud in suit? (2) Is the claim barred by limitation? (3) Is the conveyance of the plaintiff a bona fide document for consideration?

(3.) The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit and has disallowed the claim for possession as well as the alternative claim for refund of the consideration-money. On the present appeal, the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge have been assailed upon every point.