BALU DEVI Vs. KRISHNANAND MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. IV, Ranchi, whereby the Defendant's appeal, which was. allowed in the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Munsif was modified.

(2.) The Appellant was the Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 40 of 1983. In the said suit, the Plaintiff had prayed for a decree for confirmation of possession and/or in alternative, if the Plaintiff is found dispossessed, for recovery of possession. He had also sought declaration that the registered deed of sale dated 16.3.1972 executed by Mostt. Bharti in favour of Krishnanand Mahto in respect of suit land is void and inoperative.

(3.) The Plaintiff's case, in brief, was that the parties to the suit are Hindus, governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law. Suit land was originally owned, held and possessed by Puran Mahto-father of the Plaintiff. His name was recorded in finally published Revisional Survey Records as "occupancy raiyat". Puran Mahto died soon after the Revisional Survey leaving behind four widows, namely, Most. Suraj Most. Budhan(deceased mother of the Plaintiff), Most. Alo (deceased) and Most. Bharti(Defendant No. 2). The Plaintiff is the only daughter of Most. Budhan. After the death of Puran Mahto, his land and property was inherited by his four widows by way of survivorship. After death of Puran Mahto, all the four widows came in joint possession of the properties, including the suit land. The Defendant No. 2 had instituted a suit for partition being Partition Suit No. 202 of 1946 claiming 1/4th share in the property. The suit was decreed declaring her 1/4th share in the preliminary decree. During pendency of the said suit, the Defendant No. 1 got a registered sale deed dated 16.3.1972, executed by Defendant No. 2 with respect to the suit land without any consideration and without legal necessity. The said sale deed was not operative and the same created no interest in favour of Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 2 being co-widow of late Puran Mahto, had no right to alienate any part of the corpus of the property in favour of any one. No right, title was transferred by virtue of the said sale deed and the same was wholly in-operative and void. The Defendant No. 2 in collusion with Defendant No. 1 tried to get delivery of possession by levying Execution Case No. 28 of 1982 through Defendant No. 2 in the garb of execution of the decree in Partition Suit No. 202 of 1946. The Defendant No. 2 having already parted with her interest by executing the sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1, has no right to execute final decree and Defendant No. 1 is not entitled to get separate possession of the suit land. The Plaintiff after the death of her mother-Budhan Devi in 1972, inherited the said land and came in possession of the same. Since the Plaintiff is the only daughter of Puran Mahto, he inherited the entire land and interest of Puran Mahto and has sole and exclusive right over the land. She has been in continuous possession of the suit land.