RAJA SINGH Vs. CHAICHOO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of Babu Anjam Kumar Sahay, Subordinate Judge at Patna, dated 20 September 1938, setting aside a decision of Babu Bhagwan Prasad, Munsif at Patna, dated 31 August 1937. The suit was originally instituted by one Titai Singh, as a pauper, for recovery of possession of certain, properties, and for mesna profits, on a declaration that a deed of gift, said to have been executed by him on 18 June 1931 in respect thereof, was fraudulent and null and void. The suit was instituted on 3 August 1935, Titai Singh died, on 2 September, 1936, and an agnate of his, the present respondent, Chaichoo Singh, was substituted as plaintiff in his place on 12th October 1936. The substituted plaintiff paid full court-fees on the subject-matter of the suit. The suit was not heard, or evidence recorded, until 1937. Hence Titai Singh could not be examined as a witness.

(2.) The alleged facts upon which the action was brought, were that some ten years before the suit Titai Singh employed defendant 1 to look after his cultivation and his affairs generally, as he had become too old to manage them himself. After some time defendant 1 asked Titai to grant him a lease of his raiyati lands in order that he might have an incentive to look after Titai's affairs with greater zeal and. care. Titai agreed, and in October 1928, purchased a stamp paper for the purpose and put his thumb mark thereon. In June 1931, defendant 1 asked Titai to get the lease registered, whereupon Titai came to Patna, where defendant 1 fraudulently induced Titai to execute a deed of gift in his favour under the impression that he was executing a lease. Shortly afterwards, defendant 1 left Titai uncared for, and went away with all the papers. Defendants 2 and 3 thereupon, finding Titai helpless dispossessed him from the suit land, representing themselves to be purchasers from defendant 1 as a donee of Titai.

(3.) Titai thereupon got inquiries made and learnt of the fraud that had been practised upon him. Hence the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the deed of gift was void and that the defendants had acquired no title to the lands. The defence was that there was no fraud in execution of the deed of gift, that it was validly executed and was acted upon, that defendant 1 having acquired a good title thereunder made a bona fide sale of 4 1/4bighas of the land and the house to defendant 2 for a sum of Rs. 1,400 and 1 bigha odd to defendant 3 for a sum of Rs. 200 by registered sale deeds. Defendant 2 subsequently sold a portion of the land purchased by him by a registered sale deed to defendant 5. It was alleged that Chaichoo Singh and some others had wanted to purchase the properties themselves, and so had induced Titai Singh, who did not like the idea that defendant 1 should sell away the properties in his lifetime, to file this false suit. The learned Munsif found that there was no satisfactory evidence to substantiate the case of fraud.