Patna High Court - Orders
Shivajee Singh & Ors vs Mosmat Kunti Kuer & Ors on 22 August, 2013
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.92 of 2008
======================================================
1. Shivajee Singh, son of late Mathur Singh.
2. Kirandeo Singh, son of late Thakur Singh.
3. Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Sri Shila Prasad Singh.
4. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Sri Nantuman Singh.
5. Smt. Rita Kumari, wife of Sri Dinesh Singh.
6. Smt. Pushpa Kumari, wife of Sri Dhanesh Kr. Singh.
7. Sri Dhanesh Kumar @ Dhanesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Shyam
Nandan Singh.
8. Dinesh Kumar, son of Shyam Nandan Singh.
All are residents of Village- Rahua Rajaram, P.O. -
Musahari Farm, P.S. - Mushahari, Munsifi- East Muzaffarpur,
District- Muzaffarpur.
....Appellants/Defendants 2nd Party .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Mosmat Kunti Kuer, wife of late Shyan Narayan Thakur and daughter
of late Raj Mangal Singh @ Akal Singh, resident of village- Rahua
Rajaram, P.O.- Musahari Farm, P.S.- Musahari, Munsifi-
Muzaffarpur East, District- Muzaffarpur.
......Respondent 1st Party/Plaintiff 1st Party...Respondent.
2. Smt. Bachchi Devi, wife of Sri Chandradhar Prasad Singh and
daughter of late Raj Mangal Singh @ Akal Singh, resident of Village
and P.O.- Bhagwanpur Desna, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, Munsiffi & District-
Samastipur.
....Respondent 2nd party/plaintiff 2nd party....Respondent.
3. Sri Sonelal Singh, son of late Bindeshwari Singh, resident of Village-
Rahua Rajaram, P.O.-Musahari Farm, P.S.- Musahari, Munsiffi-
Muzaffarpur East, District- Muzaffarpur.
....Respondent 3rd party/plaintiff 3rd party..Respondent 3rd Set.
4. Sri Mahendra Singh, son of late Laldeo Singh, resident of Village-
Rohua Rajaram, P.O.- Musahari Farm, P.S.- Musahari, Munsiffi-
Muzaffarpur East, District- Muzaffarpur.
....Respondent 4th Party/Defendant 3rd Party..Respondent 4th set.
5. Smt. Pramila Devi, wife of Sri Ram Kishore Thakur @ Bharath
Thakur, resident of Village- Madhopur Fulwaria, P.O.- Madhopur,
P.S.- Rajepur, Munsiffi- Motihari, District- East Champaran.
.....Respondent 5th party/Defendant 1st party...Respondent 5th set.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Udai Singh
Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
10 22-08-2013This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2007/18.12.2007 passed by the learned Patna High Court SA No.92 of 2008 (10) dt.22-08-2013 2 Additional District Judge 5th, Muzaffarpur in Title Appeal No.56 of 1997, whereby the appellate court below while dismissing the appeal, has upheld and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1997/30.9.1997 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VII, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No.12 of 1986, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The purchasers from the defendant no.1 are in appeal before this Court.
The facts of the case briefly stated is that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiffs seeking to get a declaration that the 7 sale-deeds executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant 2nd set who are the appellants before this Court, all dated 20.12.1985, were an act of fraud, fabricated, void and inoperative. Except the purchasers, the other parties to the suit come from a common ancestor, late Uday Singh who was survived by three sons, namely, Laldeo Singh, Raj Mangal Singh and Bindeshwari Singh. Raj Mangal Singh deceased on 26.2.1951 and was survived by his wife Gayawati Kuer and three daughters, namely, plaintiff nos.1, 2 and defendant no.1. A gift deed was executed by Most. Gayawati Kuer in favour of her eldest daughter, namely, Most. Kunti Kuer (plaintiff no.1) on 14.2.1975 in what is stated to be her entire share in the undivided joint family property. Soon thereafter a second gift deed was executed by Most. Kunti Kuer in favour of her Patna High Court SA No.92 of 2008 (10) dt.22-08-2013 3 younger sister Bachchi Devi (plaintiff no.2) on 30.1.1976 in relation to a portion of the property received by her under the gift-deed. The brother of Raj Mangal Singh, namely, Laldeo Singh died on 25.10.1975 and the other brother Bindeshwari Singh died on 14.2.1981. Gayawati Kuer also deceased on 28.12.1984. One year thereafter, the youngest daughter of Raj Mangal Singh and Gayawati Devi namely Pramila Devi executed 7 sale-deeds in favour of the defendants 2nd set on 20.12.1985 and which led to the filing of the suit in question giving rise to Title Suit No.12 of 1986. The suit was filed by the two elder daughters of Raj Mangal Singh and Gayawati Kuer. The son of Bindeshwari Singh namely Sone Lal Singh (plaintiff no.3) initially was arraigned as defendant but was transposed as plaintiff. The youngest sister who had executed the sale-deed, namely, Pramila Devi was defendant no.1, the purchasers were defendants 2nd set (defendant nos.2 to 9) and the son of Laldeo Singh, namely, Mahendra Singh was arraigned as defendant no.10 (defendant 3rd set).
The trial court on the basis of the rival pleadings of the contesting parties and the evidence adduced by them decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs under a judgment and decree date 20.9.1997/30.9.1997. Being aggrieved the appellants herein questioned the decree by filing an appeal giving rise to Title Patna High Court SA No.92 of 2008 (10) dt.22-08-2013 4 Appeal No.56 of 1997 and which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge-V, Muzaffarpur vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2007/18.12.2007 and hence this appeal. The appellants before this Court are the purchasers from defendant no.1 namely Pramila Devi, the youngest daughter of Gayawati Kuer.
Mr. Kumar Udai Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants sought to question the judgment and decree passed by the courts below on the following grounds:
(a) The evidence on record reflects that the donor Gayawati Kuer was not in the know of the effect of the gift deed dated 14.2.1975 which is substantiated by the subsequent sale-deed dated 22.6.1978 led as Exhibit-A/6, whereby the said Gayawati Kuer along with her two brother-in-laws, namely, Laldeo Singh and Bindeshwari Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of one Ram Chandra Sah.
(b) The very fact that the donor Gayawati Kuer had gifted her entire property without making any provision for her maintenance reflects a suspicion as to the genuineness of the deed.
(c) The presence of Exhibit-E/1 which was an Patna High Court SA No.92 of 2008 (10) dt.22-08-2013 5 application filed by Gayawati Kuer before the Consolidation Officer for mutation of her name as well as Exehibit-2 which is the gift deed dated 30.1.1976 executed by the donee the plaintiff no.1, Kunti Kuer in favour of plaintiff no.2 (Bachchi Kuer) again creates a doubt as regarding the collusiveness of the beneficiaries in getting the gift deed executed by the Gayawati Kuer.
I have heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. The fact regarding the devolution of the property upon Gayawati Kuer is not disputed rather it is admitted that Gayawati Kuer by virtue of the provisions of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 became exclusive owner of the property belonging to her late husband Raj Mangal Singh which had passed on to her consequent upon his death in the year 1951. Thus the exclusive ownership of Gayawati Kuer over the suit property is not in dispute. The said aspect further clears the deck for holding that Gayawati Kuer being the exclusive owner of suit property also had right to transfer the same in favour of any person which in the present case is the eldest daughter of Gayawati Kuer namely Kunti Kuer the plaintiff no.1. Once the legal right of Gayawati Patna High Court SA No.92 of 2008 (10) dt.22-08-2013 6 Kuer to execute the sale-deed by virtue of her possessing the property initially under the provisions of the Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 followed by the right to ownership thereof under the provisions of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is admitted there was no estoppel for her to gift the property in question. It is perhaps in the admitted circumstances and appreciating the legal position that Mr. Singh questioning the decree impugned endeavoured to challenge the gift deed on the anvil of fraud and on grounds that the gift of the entire property by the donor without any provision of maintainance was unconscionable and raised suspicion regarding its genuineness. Unfortunately neither the youngest daughter of Gayawati Kuer namely Pramila Devi who is the vendor, ever sought to question the gift-deeds by taking recourse to appropriate civil law remedy nor any such recourse was made by the appellants. In fact in the present case no such counter claim was set up either by the vendor or the vendees who are appellants before this Court. There is thus absolute lack of evidence either oral or documentary which would persuade this Court to venture into the arguments set up by Mr. Singh.
The three documents referred to by Mr. Singh in his endeavour to create suspicion would hardly come to his aid inasmuch as Exhibit-E/1 which is an application filed by Patna High Court SA No.92 of 2008 (10) dt.22-08-2013 7 Gayawati Kuer requiring mutation in her name would in no manner create any doubt regarding the veracity of the gift-deed. The question raised with reference to the sale-deed dated 22.6.1978 (Exhibit-A/6) stands clarified by the evidence of vendee himself who was deposed as P.W.8 and has clearly stated that Gayawati Kuer became signatory to the deed upon his request. The last document relied upon by Mr. Singh in support of his contention is Exhibit-2/A which is a gift deed dated 30.1.1976 executed by the plaintiff no.1, Kunti Kuer in favour of plaintiff no.2 with regard to a portion of property received by her from Gayawati Kuer. The said instance again does not have any reflection to question the genuineness of the gift-deed executed by Gayawati Kuer.
The courts below have taken note of all the circumstances while discussing issue nos.5 and 6 and have held that in absence of any evidence by the appellants, there could be no reason for questioning the veracity of the gift-deed and the same has to be held legal and valid. As regarding right if any, vested in the Defendant no.1, the said aspect has been discussed in issue nos.7 and 8 and it has been held that in view of the provisions of the Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 followed by the provisions underlying the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 vesting absolute ownership in Gayawati Kuer, the Patna High Court SA No.92 of 2008 (10) dt.22-08-2013 8 only circumstance in which the defendant no.1 could claim any right is, had Gayawati Kuer died interstate but that is not the case here and Gayawati Kuer before her death had gifted her entire property in favour of her eldest daughter, Kunti Kuer and thus the defendant no.1 did not inherit any property. There being thus a conclusive finding of fact by the courts below in the backdrop of the legal provisions underlying the Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as also taking into consideration that there was no attempt either by the defendant no.1 or the defendant 2 nd set who are the appellants before this Court to question the gift-deed executed by Gayawati Kuer on the anvil of fraud by leading cogent evidence, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the judgment and decree impugned. This appeal being devoid of merit and not raising any substantial question of law, is dismissed accordingly.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-