DULHIN SUNDERBATI KUER Vs. SUKHDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Mt. Sunderbati Kuer, who was the plaintiff, is the youngest of the three daughters of Raghunandan Tewari, who is now dead, and Mt. Fekan Kuer, who, was defendant 2 in the Court below. On 3 October 1989, Mt. Fekan Kuer executed a sale-deed conveying 9 bighas 16 kathas 12 dhurs of land to Sukhdeo Singh, defendant 1. Sukhdeo Singh is one of three brothers, the other two of whom married the two elder daughters of Raghunandan Tewari and Mt. Fekan Kuer. The consideration for the sale-deed was Rs. 1000, and it contained a recital that from the time, between 1327 and 1846, Mt. Fekan Kuer had borrowed money for purposes of legal necessity from Sukhdeo Singh. The amount outstanding when the sale-deed was executed was Rs. 591-4-0, and the balance was taken partly in order to pay arrears of rent and partly in order to enable bullocks to be purchased and necessary repairs to the dwelling house of Mt. Fekan Kuer to be carried out. The plaintiff asserted that, in point of fact, her mother had never borrowed any money from Sukhdeo Singh and that the sale-deed and the chithas had been brought into existence merely in order to enable her two elder sisters, or rather the joint family into which they had married, to obtain a larger share in the land of Raghunandan Tewari than they were entitled to under the ordinary rules of inheritance. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal this decision was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) Mr. B.N. Rai, for the appellant, complains that the learned Additional District Judge did not consider or weigh as carefully as he should have done the reasoning by which the learned Subordinate Judge supported his decision. Mr. Rai refers to the observations of Fazl ali, J. as he then was, in R.P. Ghosh V/s. B. & N.W. Ry. Co. A.I.R. 1943 Pat. 177, and suggests that either we ought to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate Court, or at all events, ought to order the apeal to be reheard. The observations of Fazl Ali J. were, however, based on the facts of the particular case with which he was then concerned.

(3.) Moreover, it is not, I think, possible to say that the learned Additional District Judge did not consider the reasons which weighed with the trial Court in decreeing the suit. Mt. Fekan Kuer, being a pardanashin woman, the money which from time to time she borrowed from Sukhdeo Singh was some times sent to her through a messenger. The defendants put into the witness-box two men who were either servants or relations of Mt. Fekan Kuer and who said that money had been sent to her by Sukhdeo Singh through them. They also put into the witness-box two other men who claimed to have been present when Sukhdeo Singh had advanced certain sums of money.