MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–The original plaintiff (since deceased) had filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.1979 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Court, Munger in title suit No.96 of 1977.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration of title over the suit property and for recovery of possession and other consequential reliefs.

3. The plaintiff claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the suit plot No.248 was purchased by Basudeo Lall, the father of the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 29.11.1938 and plot No.249 by registered sale deed dated 13.02.1946. After purchase, his father amalgamated these two plots and then the father and the plaintiff constructed a pucca three storied building on the same. The Mama of the plaintiff i.e. brother-in-law of Basudeo Lall namely Ramdhan Prasad was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.25 from 1950 to 1959. Ramdhan Prasad lived till his death and after his death in the year 1960, his widow with her daughters were allowed to live in the house. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 purchased the suit house from the widow of Ramdhan Prasad namely Sundari Devi. Gopal Prasad has purchased suit house from Jaya Devi, one of the daughters of Ramdhan Prasad. The sale deeds are without consideration and fraudulent. No title conveyed to the purchasers.

4. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed contesting written statement alleging that in fact, Ramdhan Prasad was the real owner of the property. To avoid the claim of his co-sharers in the suit property, Ramdhan Prasad purchased the property in the name of his brother-in-law, Basudeo Lall. Ramdhan Prasad was not the tenant. Ramdhan Prasad has paid the consideration amount of the sale deed in the year 1938 and 1946. In the marriage of Jaya Devi, one of his daughters, the suit house was given in Dahej to his daughter, Jaya Devi. After his death, his legal heirs became the owner of the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff?s suit is liable to be dismissed. After purchase, the purchasers are coming in possession of the property.

5. The defendant no.4 also filed another contesting written statement. She is also purchaser. Her defence is also in the same line as that of defendant Nos.2 and 3.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues:—

I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

II. Has the plaintiff got a cause of action for the suit?

III. Is the suit barred by limitation?

IV. Whether the lands over which the suit house stands were purchased by Basudeo Lall as alleged by the plaintiff or these were purchased by late Ramdhan Prasad from his own money in the Benami name of late Basudeo Lall as alleged by defdt. Nos.2, 3 and 4?

V. Whether the suit house was constructed by late Basudeo Lall as alleged by the plaintiff or it was constructed by late Ramdhan Pd. as alleged by defendant nos.2, 3 and 4?

VI. Whether late Ramdhan Prasad came in possession of the suit house as a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs.25/- as alleged by the plaintiff?

VII. Whether after the death of late Ramdhan Prasad his widow Mostt. Sundari Devi lived in the suit house and if so, whether she lived therein as tenant at will of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff or she lived in her own right after inheriting the house as alleged by defendant nos.2 and 3?

VIII. Whether defendant no.12 was inducted as a tenant in the house by the plaintiff?

IX. Whether late Basudeo Lall had executed a Bazidawa in respect of the suit house in favour of Ramdhan Prasad as alleged by defendant nos.2, 3 and 4?

X. Whether Srimati Jaya Devi had acquired title and possession of the suit house prior to its sale by her to Gopal Prasad either by virtue of gift of the same to her by late Ramdhan Prasad at the time of her marriage more than 20 years ago or by adverse possession?

XI. Whether defendant nos.2 and 3 have got title and possession of the suit hou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document