First Appeal No. 399 of 1976. Case: Chandrawati Devi and Ors. Vs Bansidhar Rai and Ors.. Patna High Court

Case Number:First Appeal No. 399 of 1976
Party Name:Chandrawati Devi and Ors. Vs Bansidhar Rai and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Kumar Udai Singh and Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates
Judges:Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Issue:Property Law
Judgement Date:February 03, 2017
Court:Patna High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

  1. The plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.05.1976 passed by the learned Second Addl. Subordinate Judge, Ara in Title Suit No. 189 of 1972/170 of 1974 whereby the plaintiffs appellant's suit has been dismissed.

  2. The plaintiff's appellants filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and in the alternative for recovery of possession. They also prayed for injunction. The first set plaintiffs claimed title over Schedule I land whereas the plaintiffs second set claimed title over Schedule II land.

  3. Their case in short is that the ex.-landlords obtained a rent decree in Rent Suit No. 6265 of 1935 in relation to rent of land comprised within khata No. 22 and they filed Execution Case No. 1649 of 1936. In the execution case, the lands of khata No. 22 and the suit land were auctioned sold and the landlords purchased the land on 15.03.1937. The auction sale was confirmed on 15.04.1937. Delivery of possession was affected on 26.05.1938. In the year 1944, Ram Prasad Gupta and Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal heirs of Amirchand Prasad, one of the landlord executed sale deed on 2.2.1944 with respect to lands of Schedule I in favour of Jagarnath Singh and possession was given to him. They also executed another sale deed with respect to Schedule II land in favour of Babu Ram Dewan Singh and possession was handed over. The purchasers acquired title and were in cultivating possession. Jaggannath Singh settled the land of Schedule I to the plaintiffs first set who came in possession thereof and ultimately he sold by registered sale deed dated 5.1.1959 the land of Schedule I to the plaintiff first set. Likewise, Ram Dewan Singh sold the schedule II land and other lands in favour of the plaintiffs second set by registered sale deed dated 8.5.1971. The defendants have got no title over the same but they started interfering possession of the plaintiff.

  4. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are claiming title on the basis of auction purchase in Execution Case No. 648 of 1939 wherein the ex.-landlord Amirchand Prasad and Ram Prasad Gupta were not parties. Amirchand Prasad and Ram Prasad Gupta had already auction purchased much earlier but the defendants did not make them party. Therefore, entire proceeding of the execution case was null and void. The mother of the plaintiffs second set was also not made party as the plaintiff second set were minor. No legal guardian was appointed for representing the minor plaintiff second set.

  5. The defendants filed contesting written statement. Their main defence is that there was no rent suit and no rent decree was obtained and no decree was put in auction and there was no auction purchase as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendants also denied the confirmation of sale and delivery of possession in favour of the ex.-landlord Amirchand Prasad and Ram Prasad Gupta. The defendants also denied execution of sale deed by Amirchand Prasad and Ram Prasad Gupta in favour of Jagarnath and Ram Dewan Singh and all the sale deeds alleged by the plaintiffs are fabricated and they did not acquire any right title and interest on the suit lands.

  6. The defendants further alleged that there was a simple mortgage in favour of father of the defendant No. 1 and when mortgage money was not paid by the mortgager, Mortgage Suit No. 60 of 1936 was filed against Jagat Narain Singh and Shaligram Singh along with plaintiffs and other concerned person. Mukfula decree was passed against the defendant. Execution Case No. 648 of 1939 was filed to execute the decree. Entire suit land measuring 3.70 acres were put in auction sale and the defendants purchased the same on 6.10.1939. Certificate was...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL