HIRA MANI DEVI Vs. BANSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20-6-1988 and 28-6-1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1986 by Shri Yugal Kishore Prasad, 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 7-5-1986 and 17-5-1986 passed in Title Suit No. 12 of 1985 by Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj was reversed.

(2.) The plaintiff appellant Hira Mani Devi had filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of her right, title and interest in respect of the suit property i.e. 4 decimals of land of plot No. 896 appertaining to khata No. 67 situate in village Narsingpur @ Pathra, P. S. Chainpur, District Palamau detailed in the schedule of the plaint and recovery of possession.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff appellant is that plot No. 896 of Khata No. 67 having an area of 4 decimals situate in village Narsingpur @ Pathra stands recorded in the Survey Records of Right in the name of Padarath Ram as "Kayamy Belagan" land and he was in possession over the land and the house standing on the aforesaid suit land till his life. It is alleged that Padarath Ram died about 50 years ago leaving behind his two sons, namely Triveni Ram and Bhawani Ram who inherited the suit property and came in possession thereof along with other lands and Triveni Ram aforesaid also died in the year 1952 in the state of jointness with his brother Bhawani Ram aforesaid leaving behind his only son Ayodhya Ram and four daughters and after the death of Triveni Ram his only son Ayodhya Ram inherited the suit property excluding the four daughters of Triveni Ram as these daughters had no right in law to inherit the suit property and Ayodhya Ram came in possession thereof having exclusive title therein. Bhawani Ram also died issueless in the year 1962 in the state of jointness with Ayodhya Ram as member of the Mitakshra Joint Hindu Family and since then Ayodha Ram had exclusive title and possession in respect of the suit land. It is alleged that Ayodhya Ram executed a sale deed dated 12-11-1975 for Rs. 1000/- in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff appellant and put the plaintiff appellant in possession thereof and since then the plaintiff appellant acquired right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and came in possession thereof and continued in possession of the suit land. It is alleged that there was a dilapidated house over the area of one decimal of the suit land and the plaintiff appellant was coming in possession over the same and cultivated 3 decimals of suit land and used to keep her cattle in the said dilapidated house. The case of the plaintiff appellant further is that the defendants respondent surreptitiously kept the tools of repairing cycle in the dilapidated house aforesaid in the night in the month of December, 1982 in the absence of the plaintiff appellant and her husband and on being asked to remove his Illegal possession, the defendants respondents refused to vacate the said dilapidated house and the matter was reported to the Circle Officer, Chainpur where the mutation proceeding was pending in respect thereof and the mutation case of the plaintiff appellant was rejected by the Circle Officer. It is further alleged that the plaintiff appellant came to learn during the pendency of the mutation proceeding that the defendants respondent had based their claim in respect of the suit land on the basis of an illegal, bogus and fraudulent sale deed purported to have been executed by the sisters of Ayodhya Ram executed in favour of the defendants respondent and the sisters of Ayodhya Ram had no right, title and interest to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants respondent as Triveni Ram aforesaid had died prior to the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the plaintiff appellant had acquired right and title in the suit land and she is in possession by virtue of the sale deed dated 12-11-1975 executed by Ayodhya Ram.