NARAYAN SAHAY Vs. HIKAYAT MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-appellants with defendant 11 are brothers sons of Sheonath Sahai, a pleader of Chapra, who died in 1900 leaving his widow, defendant 4, but no issue. The suit was brought on the basis that the nephews being the next reversionary heirs of Sheonath Sahai were entitled to a declaration that the sale- deed dated 9 October 1915 in respect of 3 bighas 13 kathas 13 dhurs of kasht land formerly held by Sheonath Sahai, which was executed by the widow in favour of defendants 1 to 3, was without consideration and legal necessity and that a rent sale of the holding held on 9 September: 1926 was collusive, fraudulent and not binding on the reversionary heirs. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the declaration in respect of the sale-deed and refused it in respect of the rent sale and directed the parties to pay their own costs.

(2.) The plaintiffs have appealed against the refusal of the declaration in respect of the rent sale and defendants 1 and 3 have preferred a cross-objection impugning the declaration granted in respect of the sale-deed. The plaintiffs case was (1) that the widow had no necessity to incur debts or to execute the sale deed, and that the necessity and consideration mentioned therein are all false; and (2) that as regards the rent sale, there was collusion between the widow, defendants 1 to 3 and the landlords, defendants 1 to 10, who instituted the rent suit. Defendants 1 to 3 alleged that they purchased from the widow after satisfying themselves on full inquiry that there was legal necessity, and in fact such necessity existed and actually was brought about by the harassment occasioned to the widow by the plaintiffs themselves.

(3.) They further contended that they had nothing to do with the rent suit filed by the landlord who had refused their tender of the rent because these defendants refused to pay the chauth or salami of one-fourth of the sale price which the landlords claimed from the purchasers as a condition of acknowledging them and receiving rent from them. They pleaded that they had purchased at, rent sale to safeguard their own interest. In her written statement the widow averred that she had been put to heavy loss and expend it are on account of civil and criminal cases started by the plaintiffs against her and had incurred debt of Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 13,000 on that account. She protested that the sale-deed was for consideration and legal necessity; she had even executed various sale- deeds including two in favour of the nephews of her husband who are parties to the suit.