SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Savitri Devi and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Smt. Jaiwanti Devi and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.496 of 1982
Decided on 17.9.2014

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:T.N. Maitin and Vishwanath Chaudhary, Advocates
For the Respondents:Devendra Pd. Singh and Sudhir Ranjan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Death Register is public document, this document will prevail over oral evidence produced by plaintiff.

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 & 60 — Daughter — Married — Name not in voter list — But in Parivarik Pustika shown as daughter — HELD — She able to prove that she is daughter. [Paras11 to 14]

       (ii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Father died prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Plaintiff-daughter (Married) had no interest in coparcenary joint property. [Para 17]

       (iii) Death Register — Entry made on 26-11-1955 — HELD — No question of mentioning date of death as “20.11.1956” arises. [Para 17]

       Result: Appeal allowed

       

JUDGMENT

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.—The defendants have filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1982 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge. Biharsharif in Title Suit No. 113 of 1977/36 of 1982 whereby the Court below decreed the plaintiffs suit for partition.

2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Smt. Jaiwanti Devi filed the aforesaid partition suit for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit property. She claimed the said relief alleging that Chhatar Singh, Tufani Singh and Rohan Singh were the three brothers. Tufani Singh had a son Bodhu Singh. The three brothers separated before survey operation and their separate possession was shown in the survey record of right. They were cultivating the lands according to their convenience but there was no partition by metes and bounds between them. Bodhu Singh died in November, 1956 in the state of separation leaving behind his only daughter, the plaintiff Smt. Jaiwanti Devi. The defendant No. 1 is the daughter of Mahabir Singh, who was son of Rohan Singh, Bodhu Singh had performed marriage of the plaintiff in Baishakh 1363 Fasali but thereafter on 10th of Kartik 1364 Fasali he died, as such the plaintiff succeeded to his property. The defendants represent the branch of Chhatar Singh and Rohan Singh, Anupa Kuer wife of Mahabir Singh in collusion with her daughter Mundrika Devi (defendant No.1) filed Title Suit No. 16 of 1957 against the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 6 leaving aside the plaintiff for declaration of her title and partition of the property belonging to Mahabir Singh. In the said suit the existence of plaintiff as daughter of Bodhu Singh was denied by them and they compromised and filed fraudulent compromise petition on 15.12.1957 on the basis of which a compromise decree was passed on 15.4.1961. The plaintiff was neither party nor had knowledge and further the compromise decree was fraudulent. It is not binding on the plaintiff and that the decree is void and illegal. In fact, the plaintiff is still in joint possession of the property and she is residing in the house of Bodhu Singh. She is a co-sharer with the defendants so she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. Schedule-II property is self-acquired property of Bodhu Singh, who was in exclusive possession over the same till his death. After his death the plaintiff came in possession. By some bogus transaction and without consideration. some lands described in Schedule-IV of the plaint were transferred by the defendants.

3. The defendant No. 1 filed contesting separate written statement. Besides taking various ornamental and legal pleas the defendant No. 1 mainly contended that Bodhu Singh died issueless. The plaintiff is cousin sister of Binda Singh (defendant No. 12) who set up the plaintiff and got filed the suit. In tact the plaintiff is daughter of one Ram Charan Singh of village Kulti. Bodhu Singh died in the month of Kartik 1955 and not in the month of November. 1956. The plaintiff is not in joint possession of the property as she is not related in any way. The compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 16 of 1957 is valid and legal. In the plaint there is no Schedule-III or Schedule-IV mentioned by the plaintiff.

4. The defendant Nos. 2 to 10 also filed separate written statement wherein they alleged that Bodhu Singh died issueless on 20.11.1955. Wife of Bodhu Singh died 40-42 years earlier. Their rest defence is in the same line as that of defendant No.1.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the Court below framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for the suit?

(ii) Whether the suit, as framed, maintainable?

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

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Bodhu Singh?

(v) Whether Bodhu Singh died in the year 1955 or 1956?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of partition, if so, in which property and to what extent?

(vii) To what other relief or reliefs is the plain




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top