RANCHI, India, Aug. 12 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 14:
1. The instant Second Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 04.03.2011 and decree dated 18.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court-II, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 53 of 2008 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 17.09.2008 (decree signed and sealed on 30.09.2008) passed by Sub-Judge-I, Giridih in Title Suit No. 26 of 2003.
2. The plaintiff (appellant herein) filed the suit for declaration that the deed of gift No. 3221 dated 24.07.2002 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is null and void and no right, title and interest passed on defendant No. 1.
It is pleaded by plaintiff that Khuban Saw, father of Gopi Saw and grandfather of plaintiff was permanent resident of village-Rajdhanwar having residential house. After death of Khuban Saw, his son inherited the property. Subsequently, sons of Khuban Saw separated in mess and business. It is further alleged that out of his own income, father of the plaintiff purchased the house detailed in schedule appended to the plaint in the name of his wife Dulari Devi (defendant No. 2). The entire consideration amount was paid by Gopi Saw out of joint family fund and Dulari Devi was only a named lender/Benamidar. She had no income of her own. It is further alleged that Gopi Saw had two sons namely Birkeshwar Prasad and Dharmendra Kumar and five daughters namely Urmila Devi, Chandrawati Devi, Meena Devi, Manju Devi and Champa Devi who have been married in the lifetime of father and living at their respective matrimonial home having no concern with the residential house of their father Gopi Saw. It is further alleged that Dharmendra Kumar Plaintiff/Appellant was in service at Bangaluru, hence, taking advantage of his absence, the defendant No. 2 executed a gift deed of the residential house in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is still residing in suit schedule house. It is further alleged that the plaintiff came to know about execution of said gift deed on 10.09.2002, hence filed the suit.
3. On the other hand, the case of the defendants/respondents is that the suit property was purchased by Dulari Devi (defendant No. 2) out of her own earning and savings and Stree Dhan. She acquired 18 Decimals of land in Survey Plot No. 556 of Khata Number 49/1 of Mauza Dhanwar from Babu Jittu Sao registered sale deed 7487 dated 12/06/1959 and came into exclusive possession. She has absolutely denied that the consideration amount was paid by her husband or the property was purchased from joint fund of the family. It is further alleged that out of her purchased land, Dulari Devi has transferred 9 decimal lands to Rama Saw, son of Fauzdari Saw about 20 years back. Her sons and daughters-in-law are residing in the house only as per the consent and no any right has been created in favour of sons and daughters-in-law. Defendant No. 2 has admitted that she had voluntarily executed gift deed of the suit house property in favour of her own daughter-in-law (defendant No. 1) through registered deed of gift which is genuine and valid. The plaintiff is working at Bangaluru getting handsome salary and living there along with his family and children. She has gifted her own property to defendant No. 1 of her own accord hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=Wvv66Dud4dpqZq8Ja%2B1FGHa0AA1GqMprrET%2FSHLTn%2F22LQkbnqNnJBWhFVdxn7iq&caseno=SA/58/2011&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010183732011&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
