BIPTA DEVI Vs. CHANDER @ KANGRESS MARAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.3.1987 and 10.4.1987 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 92 of 1997 by Shri Raja Ram Singh, 1st Additional District Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1997 passed in Title Suit No. 11 of 1975/35 of 1977 have been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff -appellant was dismissed.

(2.) ORIGINAL plaintiff Sakali Maraiyian had died during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate Court below and her heirs and legal representatives have been substituted.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff -appellant, in brief is that Dorki Maraiyia had two sons, namely, Sohan Maraiyia and Badri Maraiyia. Sohan Maraiyia had two sons, namely, Gokhul Maraiyia and Sudhir Maraiyia. Original plaintiff Sakali Maraiyian is the widow of Gokhul Maraiyia. aforesaid Gokhul Maraiyia had four daughters. Badri Maraiyia had two sons, namely, Kashi Maraiyia and defendant -respondent Baikunth Maraiyia. Defendant -respondent Chander @ Congress Maraiyia is the natural born son of Baikunth Maraiyia aforesaid. Original plaintiff Sakali Maraiyia was in need of Rs. 200.00 and she approached defendant Baikunth Maraiyia to advance the loan of Rs. 200.00 to her by taking her land in bhugatbandha to which he agreed and she along with defendant Baikunth Maraiyia came to Deoghar. on 24.12.1974 for execution of bhugatbandha deed and Baikunth Maraiyia got a deed scribed and asked her to put her L.T.I. on the said deed and he paid Rs. 200.00 to her and Baikunth Maraiyia got the said deed registered by suppressing his fraudulent move and keeping her in dark about the nature of the document and he asserted that it was a deed of bhugatbandha. It is alleged that the contents of the said deed was never read over and explained to her and he taking advantage of her illiteracy and good faith did not give any opportunity to her to know the real shape of the said deed and thereafter he propagated in the village that his son Chander has been adopted by her as her son and a deed to that effect has been executed by her. She being suspicious on the basis of the false propaganda made by Baikunth Maraiyia came to Deoghar on 9.1.1975 and on enquiry she learnt about the fraudulent Nand Gopal Sah Versus State Of Jharkhand execution and registration of the said deed of adoption by making false representation to her and thereafter she had sworn an affidavit that she has neither adopted anyone as her son nor she has executed any deed of adoption to that effect. The further case of the original plaintiff is that she has not adopted defendant -respondent Chandar as her son and there was no occasion to her for the same and said Chandar is living with his parents and he has never resided with her and he had or has also no connection with her and the alleged deed of adoption is a fraudulent document brought into existence by defendant Baikunth Maraiyia to have his hold over her property after her death as she has only four daughters and the said deed of adoption is a result of the fraud committed on her by defendant Baikunth Maraiyia in collusion with Khelan Maraiyia, Brihaspat Maraiyia, Chedi Maraiyia and others.