JUDGMENT : - This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated the 19th December, 1956, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ranchi, dismissing the suit.

2. There are five plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are descendants of Gadi, plaintiffs 3 and 3 (a) are descendants of Gudli, and plaintiff No.4 is the descendant of Ripo. Gadi, Gudli, Ripo and one Guslu were brothers, being sons of one Ghamu. Guslu had a son named Mangra, whose daughter is Mosst. Sonia, defendant No.1.

3. Mosst Sonia, defendant No.1 executed a sale deed (Ext. A) dated the 2nd February, 1954 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of 10.24 acres of land appertaining to Khata No.57 of village Bandhua in the district of Ranchi.

4. The plaintiffs case is that they are Hindus, governed by Mitakshara School of law, and that Mangra, father of defendant No.1, died in 1938, in a state of jointness with them. After the death of Mangra, his share devolved on the plaintiff by survivorship, Mosst. Sonia having not inherited her fathers share and they have been in possession of it. They brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale deed (Exhibit A) executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was not binding on them. It was also alleged that the deed was a fraudulent one, without consideration and legal necessity and was executed during the minority of defendant No.1 and that the plaintiffs right, title and interest in the land covered by the sale deed were not affected by it at all.

5. The suit was contested by both defendants 1 and 2 who filed separate written statement but practically to the same effect. It was denied that Mangra, father of defendant No.1 was a coparcener with the plaintiffs. It was, on the other hand ascertained that he was in no way connected with them. It was said that the suit land was not the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and that Mangra never died in a state of jointness with the plaintiffs. The defence further was that the suit land was the exclusive property of the father of defendant No.1. Mangra and he was in its possession separately from the plaintiffs. On his death, he left behind his widow and defendant No.1, his daughter. On the death of the widow, defendant No.1 succeeded to her fathers property as his sole heir and was in its exclusive possession all the time till she transferred it in favour of defendant No.2, and ever since he has been in possession of the same.

6. The learned trial court found that defendant No.1 was major at the time she executed the sale deed (Exhibit A); that the sale deed was for consideration, but not for legal necessity and, that Mangra was separate but the genealogy given by the plaintiffs was not correct. On these findings, it dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

7. On appeal, the learned lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court except with regard to the genealogy given by the plaintiffs, which it has found to be correct. In other words, the learned lower appellate court has held that Mangra was a member of the plaintiffs family, but at the time of his death, he was separate from the plaintiffs. It has also affirmed the trial courts finding that the sale deed was without legal necessity, but it has dismissed the suit because the form of the suit was defective inasmuch as the plaintiffs did not claim any right by way of survivorship and also because by the time it came to give its decision Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had come into force, conferring under section 14 of it an absolute right upon a Hindu widow. The plaintiffs have since come up in appeal.

8. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the that on the findings of the appellate count itself the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration they have sought for, namely, that the sale deed in question is not binding on them. It is submitted that the learned lower appellate court has found that the plaintiffs and Mangra were members of the same family, and that the sale de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document