MAHADEO PRASAD BURNWAL Vs. ATPENDRA ROY CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.4.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court -III, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2002 whereby the lower appellate court has set aside the order dated 11.8.2002 passed by learned trial court, rejecting the petition fled by the appellant -defendant No. 4 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and the defendants are co -owners of the. joint property being Plot Nos. 196,197 and 207 (part) also numbered as Town Plot No. 1401, measuring 4 Kattha, 10 Dhur, equivalent to 0.26 acre. The said land was acquired by Rohini Estate and was settled with Haldhar Mishra. Said Haldhar Mishra came in possession of the said land and constructed a Pucca building and started living therein. Subsequently, he sold the said property to Bhairav Chandra Lahiri, who later on transferred the same to Smt. Pantha Devi and Prabhawati Devi by virtue of sale -deed dated 23.12.1946. The said purchasers came in joint possession of the property. On partition between the purchasers, eastern portion was allotted to Smt. Pantha Devi, who got her name mutated and paid rent and municipal taxes. Smt. Pantha Devi, thereafter, sold her property to Mrityunjay Rai by virtue of sale -deed dated 20.1.1962 and, in his turn, Mrityunjay Rai sold the said property to Smt. Tarulata Rai Choudhary, mother of the plaintiff, who had been in possession of the said property. The western portion of the property was allotted to Prabhawati Devi and she had been in possession thereof. After her death the same has come in possession of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for the purpose of selling the suit property. The plaintiff, being co -owner, claimed preferential and preemptory right of the said holding and as such, the plaintiff sent a notice to. the defendants but inspire of the plaintiffs offer and notice, the defendants have executed six agreements for sale in favour of six different persons. Hence the suit.