Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.—

1. Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Madhur Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1980 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1979 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1979 in original suit no. 21 of 1978 by which the plaintiffs suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by Ranchor Tikam Nanth in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 in respect of house in suit and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the House No. 1 and 2 situated in Mohalla- Chaudharana of town area Jais, Pargana Rokha, District Rae Bareli and shown by letter BDC PEF in the Commissioner's map of paper no. 32 C 2 was decreed.

3. Original suit no. 21 of 1978 was filed by Smt. Raj Kishori and against Shesh Narain Pandey, Vyas Narain and Ram Samujh for cancellation of sale deed executed by Ranchor Tikam Nath in favour of Shesh Narain Pandey and Vyas Narain dated 4.11.1976 and for permanent injunction against the defendants directing them not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the house in suit. It has been mentioned in the plaint that Gokul Prasad had two sons Vishesh Dayal and Gaya Prasad. Vishesh Dayal has one son Vishwanath Prasad, Vishwanath Prasad had two issues, one son and one daughter Gurudin and Raj Kishori. Gaya Prasad had one son Sheonath Prasad and Sheonath Prasad had three sons Ranchor Tikam Nath, Tribhuwan Nath and Shashi Bhushan Nath. It has been alleged that Vishwanath Prasad was the owner of the disputed house and he died issueless. So, Gurudin became the owner and heir. Gurudin was issueless and after his death Smt. Raj Kishori inherited the house as heir of the Gurudin. This is shown with the letters BDC PEF and the boundaries are east of the house of Devi Prasad and Shyam Kishor. West sahan Makan afterwards road, north lane after that wheat mill and Fulwari of Naresh Chand and on south hosue of Vishwanath Prasad in possession of Ram Kalap Pandey.

4. It was further alleged that the ancestral house of Sheonath Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad existed towards south of disputed house and after death of Sheonath, Ranchor Tikam, Shashi Bhushan and Tribhuwan Nath became the owner of his share and Gurudin became owner of the share of Vishwanath Prasad and after death of Gurudin, Smt. Raj Kishori became owner of the share of the Gurudin.

5. It was further alleged that Ranchor Tikam Nath had wrongly sold the entire ancestral house on 21.5.1976 and plaintiff is not bound by that. Likewise the disputed house was purchased by Ram Samujjh, father of defendant no.1 and 2 knowing it fully well that Ranchor Tikam Nath has no share in the disputed hosue and plaintiff is exclusive owner of it, from Ranchor Tikam Nath on 4.11.1976. The parents of defendant no.1 and 2 have wrongly been mentioned as Raja Ram Pandey while Raja Ram Pandey is the grand father of defendant no. 1 and 2. On this basis of this sale deed Ram Samujh and defendants no.1 and 2 tried to take possession of the hosue and demolished some part of southern wall and one room and verandah and took away some household goods. They also threatened Ram Raj Singh, who is also tenant, to vacate the house. Plaintiff claimed cancellation of the sale deed and also sought injunction.

6. Defendants filed a written statement alleging that the disputed house belongs to Ranchor Tikam Nath and after purchase, defendant no.1, 2 and 3 are in possession. Plaintiff resides in her Nanihal. This house was constructed by Ranchor Tikam Nath and he was owner in possession of the house. Written statement was amended later on and it was added that Ranchor Tikam Nath also became owner in possession of the hosue on the basis of adverse possession by being in possession for more than twelve years. Learned trial court fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document