KARAN SINGH Vs. MUSAMMAT TETAR KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession over 8 annas of Mauza Kurpani after setting aside the sale dated June 12, 1914, executed by the plaintiffs mother Musammat Hiran Kuer, in favour of one Sheoshahkar Sahu with respect to the share on the ground. that the alienation was not for any legal necessity and consequently not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff appellants also sought to redeem a zarpeshgi of the properties mentioned in Schedule B of the plainti for a partition of their share in the mauza and for mesne profits.

(2.) The plaintiff Karan Singh and Oharan Singh are two brothers. Their case shortly was that the entire Mauza Kurpani belonged to Mahali Singh, their father, and his cousins Shankar and Sukhnath Singh. Mahali's share being 8 annas and the remaining 8; annas belonged to Shankar and SukhnathVthat in execution of a money decree obtained by "Sheobhajan Sahu (the husband of defendants Nos. 1 and 2) against Shankar Singh 8 annas share of the mauza was sold and purchased by Sheobhajan Sahu on March 30, 1911, that on September 18, 1914, Sheobhajan succeeded in getting the remaining 8 annas interest in the zarpeshgi properties by a deed of assignment after paying Rs. 505-8-0, th-it during their minority their mother (defend-" ant No. 3) sold their 8 annas share in the manga by a sale-deed dated June 12,1914, to Sheoshankar Sahu reserving only a small quantity of land for their maintenance, and that she received no consideration from Sheoshankar Sahu, for the sale although it is mentioned in the sale deed to be Rs. 800, that fraud was practised upon the mother of the plaintiffs by Sheoshankar in collusion with Sukhnath and Shankar's son Jai Singh, that the said alienation was not for any legal necessity or for the benefit of the plaintiffs but was contrary or highly detrimental to their interest they being minors, that on January 5,1917, Sheoshankar Sahu executed a sale-deed in favour of Sheobhajan Sahu in respect of the 12 annas of the mauza, that plaintiff No. 1 attained majority only 8 months before the filing of the suit in 1928 (the suit having been tiled on January 21, 1929) and having come to know the state of affairs approached defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to redeem their share of the zarpeshgi but the said defendants were unwilling to do so, thnt the plaintiffs accordingly deposited the sum of Rs. 505-8-0 representing their share of the zarpeshgi on January 9, 1925, in Court, that they also asked defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to effect a partition of the share in the mauza but that they refused to do so, and hence the suit.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contesting the suit alleged that Musammat Hiran Kuer sold the property for full consideration, that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, that the sale was for legal necessity to pay off antecedent debt, that plaintiff No. 1 attained majority long ago and fought several suits with the defendants with regard to some of the lands but was throughout unsuccessful, that the suit was barred by limitation, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession of the disputed properties or to redeem the zarpesghi nor were they entitled to have the property partitioned and get mesne profits. The trial Court dismissed the suit and that decision was upheld by the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur. Various issues were raised in the case, the important ones being Nos. 3 and 4: (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? and (4) Was the sale-deed executed by defendant No. 3 obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and was it without consideration? Was there any legal necessity for the said transfer?