DURGA SAHU Vs. DEO CHAND SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of defendants -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.2.1984 and 28.2.1984 passed in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1982 by Shri A.N.K.N. Sinha, District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1982 and 4.9.1982 passed in Partition Suit No. 23 of 1977 by Sub -ordinate Judge, Giridih was set aside and the appeal was partly allowed and the suit was decreed for carving out a separate Takata of the plaintiffs -respondent to the extent of their share which is 3 annas and 8 -2/3 pie in the suit property.

(2.) THE plaintiffs respondent had filed the said suit for metes and bounds partition of the suit property of Khata No. 62 situate in village -Palmo in the district of Giridih detailed at the food of the plaint in which they had claimed 7 annas and 4 pie share.

(3.) THE case of the contesting defendants -appellant in their written statement, inter alia, is that Sona Teli had died in the year 1962 leaving behind his widow Most. Meghani Telian and a son Janki Saw and his other son Mani Saw had predeceased him and said Mani Saw Had committed suicide in the year 1952 when plaintiff Deo Chand Sahu was in the womb of his mother, co -plaintiff Most. Saro, who had left the village and went to reside in the parent 'shouse in village Karkatta and Mani Saw or his wife Most. Saro and his posthumous son Deo Chand Sahu have never inherited and possessed the suit land, rather, Janki Saw and his wife Most. Nanhki inherited Sona Teli on his demise. After the death of Janki Saw, his family faced with big financial crisis and had to discharge the antecedent loan and in order to reshape the cultivation of Karnatand where Janki Saw was residing severing of his relationship with village -Palmo, defendant No. 12 Hari Sahu being the Karta of her family and Most. Nanhki aforesaid validly and for consideration and for the benefit of her family sold the land of Janki Teli to defendant No. 5 Most Jhalia by executing a sale deed dated 13.7.1964 and this sale deed is not voidable and said three minor sons of Janki Saw had no right, title and interest in the suit land and as such the question of repudiation by them of the said sale deed does not arise and the said sale deed cannot be repudiated as the said sale deed is for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family to the full knowledge of defendant No. 15 Kaili Devi and defendant No. 16 Brinda Devi, the daughter of Janki Saw (deceased) and these defendants -appellant are in peaceful continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years over the suit land and has acquired valid title by adverse possession and ouster and sale deed alleged to have been executed by aforesaid Sukar Sahu, Murli Sahu and Brinda Devi in favour of the plaintiffs -respondent has no legal effect conferring any title on them in respect thereof. Their further case is that death of Sona Tell in the year 1934 and Most. Meghani not inheriting Sona Teli and Mani Saw inheriting Sona Teli on his demise are palpably false and incorrect and is falsified in view of the fact that plaintiff -respondent Deo Chand Sahu acquired the land of Khata No. 17 by virtue of the sale deed executed by Most. Meghani aforesaid. Most Meghani had sold her entire interest in respect of land of Khata Nos. 62 and 63 by executing sale deed dated 10.11.1967 in favour of the defendant Puran Saw and the said sale deed is legal, valid and for consideration and defendant Nos. 1 to 9 are coming in peaceful continuous possession over the land of Khata Nos. 62 and 63 by virtue of the said sale deed and the plaintiffs - respondent have never acquired or have any share in the suit land and the entire suit land is in possession of defendants -appellant to the exclusion and ouster of the plaintiffs -respondent and as such the story of demand of partition is false.