BRAJ BHUSHAN SINGH Vs. BASANTI DEVI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Basanti Devi respondent No. 1 died issueless on 28.2.2002. Her husband Kanhi Ram Bhadani is traceless since more than last seven years. Appellant, therefore, named her husband's Mother Loknath Ram Bhadani in I.A. No. 728 of 2002 (at nag 'P') to be substituted in her place. Nephews and grand sons of late Raghunandan Ram, father of deceased respondent No. 1 filed I.A. No. 1215 of 2002 (at flag 'M') under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being added as party - respondents in her place. One Ayod -hya Ram, one of the nephews of father of deceased respondent No. 1 filed petition (at flag 'Q') claiming himself to be the adopted son of Raghunandan Ram for being added in place of deceased respondent No. 1. Hence, there are three sets of claimants to be substituted. Admittedly, the suit property belonged to the mother of Basanti Devi, who had executed a Will dated 13.10.1980 in favour of her daughter. However, after her death respondent No. 1 being the sole heir inherited her estate. The suit property was, therefore, stridhan property of Basanti inherited from her father's side. Hence, under Sec. 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 heirs of her father in absence of her son or daughter inherited the said property left by her. Accordingly, name of deceased respondent No. 1 is expunged and her heirs and legal representatives, who have filed I.A. No. 1215 of 2002 and Ayodhya Prasad, who had filed petition at flag 'Q' are substituted in her place, without going into and deciding the claim of Ayodhya Prasad to be adopted son of Raghunandan Ram at this stage.

(2.) Heard the parties and perused lower Court records and with their consent the appeal is disposed of under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Plaintiff, Basanti Devi filed suit against defendants for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.2.1985 purported to have been executed by her in favour of Brajbhusan Singh, defendant No. 1 on the ground that it was forged, illegal and without consideration, for confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession over the suit land. According to her, defendant No. 1 proposed for starting a partnership business with him at Giridih and to obtain loan from a Nationalised Bank therefore, to which she agreed. On 18.2.1985 defendant No. 1 took her to his house on the plea that Manager of the Bank had come there and took her signature on three sheets of stamp papers on the false plea that it was required for loan applications. Subsequently, she came to know that actually it was a sale deed and the person alleged to be the Bank Manager was the Sub -registrar and that a sale deed was obtained from her in respect of the suit property, indicating consideration money of Rs. 12,000/ - having been received by her.