GUHI RAM MAHTO Vs. MOHAN MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patnet is directed against the judgment dated 20th May, 1997, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the First Appeal being F.A. No. 54/1983 (R) filed by the appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by Additional Sub -Judge, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 109/1979.

(2.) THE original plaintiffs Smt.Radhi Mahatwain and Smt. Ban Mahatwain, who were respondents in the appeal filed Title Suit No. 109/1979 for decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 23.3.1979 executed by them in favour of the original defendants in respect of half share in the land as per details in Schedule A of the plaint. Plaintiff's case was that the suit land were recorded in the name of Most. Sabi wife of Lohra Mahto and Govind Mahto having half share each. Lohra Mahto and Govind Mahto were sons of Haradhan. Lohra died leaving behind his widow Sabi and two daughters, Radhi and Sahachari and Sahachari also died leaving behind her only daughter Bari. Radhi and Bari were the plaintiffs. Similarly, brother of Lohra, namely, Govind Mahto died leaving behind his three sons, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and two daughters, defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Defendant No. 4 was the daughter of Govind Mahto. It was alleged that Most. Sabi died in the year 1961 and she was the absolute owner in respect of half share of the lands and after her death her two daughters, Radhi and Sahachari got half share and possession over the lands. Similarly, the half share of the land belonging to other defendants i.e. the heirs of Govind Mahto.

(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 though filed separate written statement but contested the suit jointly denying and disputing the allegation made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. It was stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs at the instance of the defendant No. 3. Their further case is that bulk of consideration amount was paid prior to the registration of sale deed and the balance amount was paid to the plaintiffs on the date of registration. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denied that any agreement for payment of consideration was executed by them on 23.3.1979. The case of the defendants is that as a matter of fact these defendants put their signatures on plain paper for mutation of their names and that paper might have been converted into an agreement. Defendant No. 3 who is one of the purchaser under the deed filed his written statement but admitted the case of the plaintiffs. He has admitted in his written statement that consideration money was not paid on the date of execution of sale deed rather separate agreement was executed whereby the defendants including himself agreed to pay consideration money within three months failing which the sale deed would be cancelled.