Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.
Rameshwar Pandey And Another
Versus
Suresh Pandey
Appeal from Original Decree No. 11 of 1977 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 09, 2007
Gift Deed - Property Rights - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the validity of the gift deed executed by Mostt. Lachho Devi in favor of the defendant-respondent Suresh Pandey. The court found that the property in dispute was joint family property and that Mostt. Lachho Devi had the right to execute the gift deed. The court also found that the gift deed was valid and genuine, and that the defendant had accepted the gift and was in possession of the gifted property. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought relief for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession, and in the alternative, for recovery of possession with respect to the suit land. The defendant contested the claim, asserting that the suit was barred by limitation, and that the gift deed executed by Mostt. Lachho Devi was valid. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property in dispute was joint family property and that Mostt. Lachho Devi had the right to execute the gift deed. The court also found that the gift deed was valid and genuine, and that the defendant had accepted the gift and was in possession of the gifted property. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the right to sue, limitation, defects of parties, the validity of the gift deed, the nature of the property, and the relief entitled to the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Mostt. Lachho Devi had the right to execute the gift deed, and that the gift deed was valid and genuine. The court also upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were upheld.
Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1976 and 9.11.1976 respectively passed by Sri Ram Kishore Singh, Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamui in Title Suit No. 20 of 1972/3 of 1976 whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants seeking relief for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative, for recovery of possession with respect to the suit land and also for declaration that the defendant did not acquire any title of the suit property by virtue of gift deed dated 7.8.70 executed by Lachho Devi in his favour.
2. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that Sadar Pandey, son of deceased Yadunath Pandey was resident of Mauza Masauri, Mohalla Mahrajganj, District Jamui. He died in between 1944-45 leaving behind him his widow, Smt. Tita Kumari and his son Baldeo Pandey as his legal heirs and accordingly, Tita Kumari and Baldeo Pandey succeeded to the properties of Sardar Pandey half and half. Baldeo Pandey, the only son of Sardar Pandey, died in the month of January, 1951 leaving behind him his mother Mostt. Tita Kumari and his wife Lachho Devi as his legal heirs. Tita Kumari, widow of Sardar Pandey also died some time after 1951 and before 1955 leaving behind him her only daughter Smt. Shyama Devi wife of plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. After the death of Tita Kumari, Shyama Devi succeeded to the interest of Smt. Tita Kumari and accordingly, she came in possession of the half share of Tita Kumari in the property of Sardar Pandey. After enactment of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 Smt. Shyama Devi became absolute owner of the property left by Tita Kumari. The said Shyama Devi died in the year 1963 leaving behind her the plaintiffs as her legal heirs.
Further case of the plaintiffs is that 1 acre 17 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 22 Khesra No. 34 of village Ganesh Nawada, P.S. Sikandra which originally belonged to Shyam Lal Pandey and Pitamber Pandey sons of Guru Dayal Pandey and Bahsi Pandey, son of Kamal Pandey of village Konnan was acquired by a registered sale deed dated 9.1.1909 in the name of Tita Kumari, widow of Sardar Pandey and since then Tita Kumari was the sole owner of the said property and had been continuously coming in possession of the same as absolute owner of the said property. After the death of Tita Kumari, her only daughter Shyama Devi inherited the said property and came in exclusive possession of the property. After the death of Shyama Devi in the year, 1968 the plaintiffs came in possession of the said property. It is said that as the property was self-acquired property of Tita Kumari, as such Sardar Pandey or Baldedo Pandey or Lachho Devi had no concern with the said property and they were never in possession of the same.
Further case of the plaintiffs is that after the death of Baldeo Pandey on 18.1.51, his widow Lachho Devi and the widow of Sardar Pandey, namely, Tita Kumari came in possession of the land and house appertaining to Khesra No. 950 of Mauza Masauri half and half. In the said house the plaintiff No. 1 was also residing under the guardianship of Lachho Devi and till today the plaintiff No. 1 along with other plaintiffs are residing in the said house. The said Sardar Pandey had also constructed a Thakurwari on the said plot (Khesra No. 950) which still exists and the plaintiffs are maintaining the Thakurwari after the death of Lachho Devi. It is said that after the death of Lachho Devi, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the interest of Lachho Devi with respect to the house and Thakurwari standing over Khesra No. 950 and the lands appertaining to the said Khesra.
Further case of the plaintiffs is that in the year 1970 Lachho Devi became very old and due to old-age (65 years) she became very weak. She was also suffering from stomach disease due to which her health deteriorated to such extent that in the last week of July, 1970 she lost
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
