BAIDYANATH PRASAD Vs. KUNJA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for setting aside an alienation made by a shebait. The property in suit is a raiyati holding having an area of 50.45 acres which had been acquired through purchase by one Madho Prasad in the year 1924. Five years before 1924, Madho Prasad had installed a deity, and this property had been acquired by Madho Prasad for and on behalf of the deity. Madho Prasad died soon after he had acquired this property, and his son Mahesh Prasad succeeded him as the shebait and began to manage the debettar property. In 1936 he sold the lands in dispute to defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of Ks. 872, there being a stipulation in the document of sale that the vendees will have to pay the arrears of rent in respect of the years 1340 to 1343 fasli. The kebala haB been operative ever since the date of its execution, and defendants 1 and 2 did come into possession of the property.

(2.) The present suit was instituted on 10 November 1944, by Baidanath Prasad one of the sons of Madho Prasad, his daughter, his widow and the deity through Baidyanath Prasad, the plaintiff No. if as the shebait. Mahesh Prasad and two other sons of Madho Prasad were impleaded as defendants second party.

(3.) The contention was that Mahesh Prasad, who had ceased to be the shebait after December 1943, had transferred the disputed property with-out any legal necessity, and for the inadequate consideration of Rs. 872. It was further alleged that plaintiff 1 had been the shebait since April 1944, with the consent of all the heirs of Madho Prasad.