LILAWATI SAHUN Vs. MADAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.6.1989 and 19.6.1989 passed in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1989 by Shit B.K. Dubey, District Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1988 and 21.12.1988 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 20 of 1986 by Munsif, Gumla were set aside and appeal was allowed declaring the title in respect of four plots also in favour of the plaintiffs -respondent.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent Paras Sahu (since dead) had filed Title Suit No, 20 of 1986 for declaration, of his title in respect of plot Nos. 1704, 2104, 2140, 2201, 2202 and 2745 appertaining to Revisional Survey khata No. 38 fully detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in part declaring the title of the said plaintiff -respondent in respect of plot No. 1704 and 2202 only. The plaintiff -respondent filed Title Appeal No. 1 of 1989 whereby his title over plot Nos. 2104, 2140, 2201 and 2745 was declared by the impugned judgment under this appeal and as such title of the plaintiff -respondent on the entire suit land stands declared in his favour.

(3.) THE case of the defendant appellant, inter alia, is that she along with her mother Phudan Sahun was in need of money to meet the necessary expenditure and they contacted the respondent to purchase their land bearing plot No. 1704 having area of 89 decimals and plot No. 2202 having area of 78 decimals for Rs. 700.00 and they have only transferred the aforesaid two plots and no other plots have ever been sold by them to the respondent and taking undue advantage of the illiteracy he got other plots mentioned in the sale deed by the scribe Anand Swaroop Sahu who happens to be his relative and they have only produced a plain paper to the scribe containing plot Nos. 1704 and 2202 only and they have no knowledge about the other plots mentioned in the sale deed. It is alleged that plot Nos. 1704 and 2202 have only been sold to the respondent and he was put in possession over the same and the appellant is continuing in possession over the other four plots since the death of her father and her mother had died in the year 1974 -75 and after her death she applied for the mutation in her favour in respect of the four plots aforesaid which was allowed and the revision filed against that appeal by the respondent was dismissed. It is alleged that she came to know for the first time that the respondent has manipulated to get other lands mentioned in the sale deed for which she or her mother have never received any consideration amount and the aforesaid four plots never came in possession of the respondents and the question of perfection of right and title in respect of the four plots aforesaid by the respondent by adverse possession does not arise at all.