SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. PURNIMA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendant No. 2-appellant-appellant against whom decree was passed by learned trial Court. He filed appeal against the said decree. The same has been dismissed, upholding the same.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and also for declaration that the deed of cancellation of sale deed bearing No. 10658/ 1998 and the deed of gift bearing No. 10659/ 1998 have not affected the plaintiffs' right, title and interest in the said land.

(3.) The plaintiffs' case was that the land appertaining to Khata No. 26 of village Sudna, P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau was recorded in the names of Thakur Dayal Mahto, Bharosa Mahto and Runan Mahto all sons of Ratan Mahto in the last survey and settlement record. The three recorded tenants had partitioned the land of Khata No. 26 in equal share. The total area of Plot No. 376 was 14 decimals and the same was allotted to the share of Thakur Dayal Mahto. Thakur Dayal Mahto died leaving behind his only son Falu Mahto. He came in peaceful exclusive possession of the said land of Plot No. 376. Falu Mahto also died leaving behind his sons Tulsi Mahto and Panchu Mahto. The family property was partitioned between Tulsi and Panchu and the said land fell in the share of Tulsi Mahto. His name was mutated in respect of the said land and demand was running. Tulsi Mahto executed registered sale deed and transferred the said land in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 28,500/-. The plaintiffs came in possession of the said land and constructed pucca residential house over the suit land. The plaintiffs and their family members are residing in the said house. The said defendant No. 2 Santosh Kumar maliciously and fraudulently managed to prepare a deed of cancellation dated 13-10-1998 of the sale deed in the name of defendant No. 1 and got the same registered. On the same day he got prepared a deed of gift in his name on the basis of the said fraudulent documents, the defendant No. 2 claimed the suit land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff.