MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–The plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.1977 passed by learned 3rd Addl. Subordinate Judge, Munger, in Title Suit No.11 of 1971 / 9 of 1977 whereby the Court below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.

2. The plaintiffs appellants filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and further for declaration that the defendant Ist party did not acquire any right and interest in the said property by virtue of sale deed dt.15.12.1970.

3. The plaintiff claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that Chandi Saha died leaving behind his two sons, Bhagwan Sah and Jagdish Pd. Sah. Bhagwan Sah died in jointness with his brother twenty years ago leaving behind a daughter and wife. All the properties were inherited by Jagdish Pd. Sah, the defendant No.2. After some time Jagdish Pd. Sah shifted to Giridih where he was running his business. The plaintiffs were tenants of Jagdish Pd. Sah in the suit premises. Jagdish Pd. Sah needed financial support for his business, therefore, he agreed to sell the suit property to plaintiff. A zarbeyana deed was executed on 22.09.1970. The consideration was fixed at Rs.14,000/-. Rs.1500/- was paid as earnest money. Subsequently, said Jagdish Pd. Sah sold the suit property by registered sale deed dt.3.12.1970 on payment of the consideration. The registration receipt was given to the plaintiff who withdrew the sale deed from Registration office.

4. The further case is that the defendant No.1 got a nominal invalid and inoperative sale deed in respect of the suit property from defendant No.3 an imposter. The defendant No.3, Mostt. Kailee Devi was not wife of Chandi Sah. She was wife of Bhikho Rai from whom she had a son. She was a characterless women and there was rumor that she was the kept of Chandi Sah. Therefore, she had no right to execute sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, therefore, no title was acquired by the defendant over the suit property. Jagdish Pd. Sah subsequently, cancelled the sale deed by registered cancellation deed dated 30-12-1970 and this deed was executed at the instance of defendant No.1.

5. The defendants filed contesting written statement. However, the main contesting defendant is the defendant No.1 who is purchaser from Mostt. Kailee Devi, the defendant No.3. During the pendency of the suit, Mostt. Kailee Devi expired and her name was expunged. Jagidsh Pd. Sah did not appear and contest. According to this contesting defendant, the main defence is that Chandi Sah died leaving behind Kailee Devi and three sons, namely, Jagdish Sah, Bhagwan Sah and Buddhu Sah. Bhagwan Sah died in jointness and the entire property of Chandi Sah was inherited by Mostt. Kailee Devi, Budhoo Sah and Jagdish Sah. There was a partition between them in the year 1957. In that partition, Jagdish agreed to take Rs.1000/- only in cash and did not take any share in the suit property. The defendant No.1 was negotiating to purchase the suit property from Mostt. Kailee. Subsequently, she sold the property by executing registered sale deed on 15.12.1070. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is without any consideration and void deed, therefore, subsequently, it was cancelled by defendant No.2.

6. The further case of the defendant No.1 is that after the death of first wife, Chandi Sah married Mostt. Kailee Devi from whom a son Budhoo Sah was born. In fact she was not a kept of Chandi Sah. In the year 1968, Budhoo expired and after his death, Kailee Devi became the sole owner.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the partied, the following issued were framed by the trial Court :—

(a) Whether the suit as framed maintainable?

(b) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

(c) Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action and right to sue?

(d) Whether the plaintiff acquired any right and title to the land by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 3.12.1970?

(e) Whether Most. Kailee Devi was the legally wedded wife of Chandi Sah and Budhan Sah wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document