Rampati Raut and others vs Mahanth Hanuman Saran

Coutts, J.—These three appeals arise out of suits which were tried together. Suit No. 110, out of which appeal No. 624 of 1920 arises and in which Rampati Raut and others were plaintiffs was a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs'' raiyati right to and possession of certain land in chak Raudraman. They claimed to have derived their title in the following way:-

One Mani Sah had two annas share in this village, his share was sold for arrears of road-cess and was purchased by Gaya Prasad. Out of the two annas purchased by Gaya Prasad, the plaintiff and his brother Aklu purchased one anna 18 dams, the remainder of the two annas being purchased by Judagi and Ram Gulam who were distant relatives. There was, however, only one deed of sale which was dated the 22nd of December 1899. Subsequent to this there was another sale for arrears of road-cess at which the two annas share was purchased by Mahabir Singh who in his turn sold it to Agnu Sah by two deeds, one for one anna 18 dams and another for two dams making in all two annas. On the 16th June, 1906, Agnu Sah sold by a deed of sale to the defendant Mahanth Hanuman Saran. The plaintiff''s case, however, is that so far as one anna eighteen dams share was concerned the transaction was a benami one and the purchase was by the plaintiff himself. In the record-of-rights the plaintiff is recorded in respect of only one anna 12 1/2 dams in two villages Nathopur and Chitna out of the four villages which constitute the chak. There was a subsequent partition which followed record-of-rights and the plaintiff was given one anna 12 1/2 dams only in the two villages. He accordingly brought the suit for a declaration of his title to one anna 18 dams in the four villages. At the same time the Mahanth brought a suit No. 109 for a declaration that Ramapati Raut had no share in the chak and that he was a purchaser of the whole of the two annas. The Mahanth also brought suit No. 1183 against Rampati Raut for rent. So far as the rent suit is concerned, it depends upon the decision of the other two suits.

In the Court of first instance the record-of-rights was followed, Rampati Raut was given a decree for one anna 12 1/2 dams and the Mahanth was given a decree for nine dams and odd only. On appeal to the District Judge the suit of Rampati Raut has been dismissed and the Mahanth has been given decree in both the suits which were brought by him. The learned District Judge has found on a consideration of the whole of the evidence that the Mahanth paid the consideration money for the whole of two annas share and that since then he has all along been in possession. This is a finding which has been come to after a consideration of the whole of the evidence on the record and it is a finding of fact with which we cannot interfere in in second appeal.

It has been urged, however, that the Court has come to this conclusion first by wrongly placing the onus on the plaintiff, and secondly, that the Mahanth has made an admission that Aklu was a part owner of the property and that he made a promise to execute a ladavi deed in favour of Rampati Raut. So far as the first contention is concerned, I fail to see how the onus has been wrongly placed on the plaintiff. Admittedly the deed is in the name of the Mahanth and the onus was certainly on Rampati Raut to show that it was a benami transaction. The learned District Judge has found that he has failed to show this and this is a finding of fact with which we cannot interfere. In so far as the second point is concerned the learned District Judge has considered this and he says that the supposed admission was not an admission at all on the part of the Mahanth, but was merely a suggestion made in the course of a negotiation and was not even unconditional.

In these circumstances there can be no doubt that the decision of the learned District Judge is correct and I would dismiss whole of these appeals with costs.

Das, J.

I entirely agree.