RUP KISHOR Vs. PATRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a share in villages Lilhar and Karanpur Pindri, by avoidance of a deed of relinquishment and a deed of transfer, dated 7 May 1911, executed on behalf of the plaintiff, when he was a minor, by his natural father Damodar Das.

(2.) The plaintiff's case briefly put is as follows: Brij Kishor was the original owner of this property and had no child. Shortly before his death he gave an oral permission to his wife, Mt. Durga Dei, to adopt a son, and then died in 1878. In 1905 Mt. Durga Dei, acting on this permission, adopted the plaintiff, and a deed of adoption was duly executed by her on 11 March 1905. The plaintiff alleged that in a suit brought by Jivan Das and others, claiming to be the collaterals of Brij Kishor against the present plaintiff Rup Kishore, a compromise was arrived at under which the estate was divided in the ratio of 6 annas and 10 annas between the claimants and the present plaintiff, and a tamliknama, dated 10 August 1906, was duly executed by the parties concerned. He then goes on to allege that a suit was brought by Kishan Chand claiming to be the bandhu of the deceased son against the collaterals of the present plaintiff, which was ultimately struck off on a compromise having been arrived at by the parties to that suit. In that suit the plaintiff was represented by his natural father, Damodar Das, who signed a deed of relinquishment and a deed of transfer, acting as the plaintiff's guardian. Under this deed the plaintiff relinquished all rights so far as the villages Lilhar and Karanpur Pindri were concerned.

(3.) We may note in this connexion that these villages had been recovered by Kishan Chand from the transferee of Mt. Durga Dei by a separate suit in 1908 to which the present plaintiff was not a party. Kishan Chand had then succeeded as against the transferee in proving that he was the next heir of the last male owner. These villages were not in dispute in the suit brought by Kishan Chand in 1910 against the present plaintiff, but were dealt with by the deeds of relinquishment and transfer mentioned above. The plaintiff's case is that these deeds are in no way binding upon him, inasmuch as they were executed without the sanction of the Court, and his natural guardian had no authority to bind him.