123, 124, 269, 274, 997 and 959 of Khata No.
Second respondent Defendant further pleaded that the suit property has been sold to various parties and the suit filed by the first respondent Plaintiff against the second respondent Defendant is liable to be dismissed.
Case of the plaintiff is that in the Revisional Survey of Records, Tarawati Devi, the widow of Girish Chandra Prasad got the property recorded in the name of her grandson Umashanker Prasad.
1/K 1/M , it was held that the first respondent Plaintiffs case about his agnate relationship with Girish Chandra Prasad stood proved and thus the Plaintiff proved his title to the suit property.
When the first respondent Plaintiff came to know that the second respondent Defendant is trying to claim title over the suit property through Tarawati Devi alleging that the suit property belonged to Tarawati Devi, the first respondent Plaintiff being the agnate of Tarawati Devi filed a suit for declaration of his title.
The said Dhanukdhari Sahay had one son named Mr. Vasudev Prasad, who further had a son and three daughters, namely, Ms. Tarawati Devi, Ms. Lakshmi Devi and Ms. Ranjan Devi.
Further case of the first respondent Plaintiff is that when he was working at Bhillai, he learnt that the second respondent Defendant is trying to obtain revenue receipt in companylusion with Anchal Karmachari.
Resisting the suit, second respondent Defendant filed a written statement refuting all claims of the first respondent Plaintiff and companytending that the disputed property belonged to one Mr. Dhanukdhari Sahay.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit holding that the first respondent Plaintiff has number produced the necessary documents to prove his title to the suit property.
The trial companyrt held that after the death of her father Dhanukdhari Sahay, Tarawati Devi became the sole legal heir of the disputed property and as per Section 15 1 b of Hindu Succession Act, if the deceased woman has acquired the property from her parents, it will be inherited by the successors of the parents of the deceased.
Genealogy of the first respondent Plaintiff and Tarawati Devi are as under Mahabir Prasad Tej Pratap Narayan Jagadambi Prasad Rudra Mahendra Kanta Kanji Girish Chandra Prasad 1960 Narayan Prasad Prasad Prasad Tarawati Devi died in 1985 died issueless died issueless Shailendra Prasad Suresh Chandra Prasad 1942 Plaintiff Deoki Devi Sita Devi Umashanker Prasad 1970 Died died issueless died unmarried The genealogy of parental side of Tarawati Devi is as under Dhanukdhari Sahay Tarawati Devi Laxmi Devi Raxn Devi Baidya Nath Defendant The first respondent Plaintiff Shailendra Prasad Srivastava filed a suit praying for declaration of his title with respect to suit property in Khasra No.
After the death of son Vasudev Prasad and others, the disputed property came to be vested in Ms. Tarawati Devis name.
It was further held that there is numberrecord to show that Tarawati Devi got the disputed property from her husband or father in law.
The said Umashanker Prasad died during the lifetime of Tarawati Devi in the year 1965.
The first respondent Plaintiff further alleged that he, being the only male member of the family, used to stay with Tarawati Devi and did all the ceremonies after her death.
31 of village Bairiya and village Koloha Pagambarpur Schedule I and Schedule II properties respectively against the second respondent Defendant Baidya Nath Prasad Verma alleging that the suit property detailed in Schedule I and II belonged to Girish Chandra Prasad.
The first respondent Plaintiff went to the office of the Circle Office Kanti and got cancellation of revenue receipt in the name of defendant.
230 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007 reversing the judgment of the trial companyrt and thereby decreeing first respondent Plaintiffs suit for declaration of title.
The second respondent Defendant Baidya Nath Prasad filed mutation appeal.
After referring to oral evidence and also the rent receipts produced by the first respondent Plaintiff in his name and in the name of Girish Chandra Prasad Ex.1 1/J and Ex.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial companyrt and held that as per the Revisional Survey Record of Right, property was recorded in the name of Umashanker Prasad, grandson of Girish Chandra Prasad and on the death of Girish Chandra Prasad, his widow Tarawati Devi became the absolute owner of the property and on her death in 1985, the property devolved on her agnate the first respondent Plaintiff.
The second respondent Defendant was the closest legal heir of Dhanukdhari Sahay and after the death of Ms. Tarawati Devi in 1985, as per Section 15 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property devolved upon second respondent Defendant by succession and mutation was effected in his name and he started paying revenue in respect of the suit property which was mutated in his name.
On the above pleadings, nine issues were framed in the trial companyrt.
Ms. Ranjan Devi died during the lifetime of her father.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of High Court of Patna in First Appeal No.
Number of witnesses were examined on the side of the first respondent Plaintiff as well as second respondent Defendant.
Upon companysideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial companyrt held that the first respondent Plaintiff has number produced any documents to show that the property belonged to the family of Tej Pratap Narayan.
