Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDU MALHOTRA, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Prahlad Pradhan & Ors - Appellants
Versus
Sonu Kumhar & Ors - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5919 of 2011
Decided On : 16-10-2019
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 – Suit challenging validity of sale-deed – Trial Court decreed suit in favour of Plaintiffs/Respondents holding that suit property was a part of joint family property of common ancestor and confirmed possession of Plaintiffs/Respondents and Proforma defendants over suit property – Burden to prove that Suit Property was self-acquired property of recorded tenant was on Appellant – Purchasers – Appellants have failed to discharge burden to prove that suit property was separate or self-acquired property of recorded tenant – Entries in revenue records do not confer title to property, nor do they have any presumptive value on title – They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay land revenue in respect of land in question – Merely because a person’s name was recorded in Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in suit property, it would not make him sole and exclusive owner of suit property – Appellants have failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever, apart from Survey Settlement of 1964 to establish that suit property was self-acquired property of recorded tenant – Since recorded tenant did not have exclusive right, title or interest in suit property, his widow was not legally competent to sell suit property to Appellants, purporting to be sole owner of property – Proforma defendants have fully supported case of Plaintiffs/Respondents – Widow of recorded tenant had no exclusive right to execute Sale Deed in favour of Appellants – Sale Deed is not legal or binding upon Plaintiffs/Respondents and Proforma defendants – Non-joinder of widow of recorded tenant in Suit filed by Respondents would not be of any consequence, as she had no surviving interest in suit property after execution of Sale Deed – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court are based on a proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 2.5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Present dispute arises out of a Civil Suit filed by Respondents for a Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973 executed by one widow of recorded tenant in favour of Appellants was void and illegal, and a further declaration of the Respondents’ title over the Suit Property. High Court vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2009 dismissed Second Appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law had arisen for consideration.
Findings of Court:
Appellants have failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever, apart from Survey Settlement of 1964 to establish that suit property was the self-acquired property of recorded tenant. Since recorded tenant did not have an exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property, his widow was not legally competent to sell the suit property to Appellants, purporting to be sole owner of property.
Result : Civil Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present dispute arises out of a Civil Suit filed by the Respondents for a Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973 executed by one Etwari Kumharin in favour of the Appellants was void and illegal, and a further declaration of the Respondents’ title over the Suit Property.
2. Briefly stated, the present Civil Appeal arises in the following factual matrix :–
2.1 Radhanath Kumhar was the owner of agricultural land and a house in Mouza Nalita, P.S. Toklo (Singhbhum).
Radhanath Kumhar died intestate, and his property devolved upon his legal heirs and descendants. The genealogy of Radhanath Kumhar’s family is set out hereinbelow for ready reference :–
2.2 The present case pertains to Plot No. 614 admeasuring 35 decimals in Khata No. 145, Mouza Nalita, P.S. Toklo (Singhbhum) (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”), which was a part of the estate of Radhanath Kumhar.
2.3 After Mangal Kumhar’s death, his widow Etwari Kumharin purported to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- to the Appellants vide a registered Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973.
2.4 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are legal heirs of two sons of late Radhanath Kumhar i.e. Sonu and Anand filed Title Suit No. 14/1986 before the Court of Munsif at Chalibasa, Jharkhand against the Appellants on the ground that the Suit Property was ancestral property, and Etwari Kumharin had no right to sell it.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents herein impleaded the legal heirs of Mangal Kumhar and Etwari Kumharin i.e. daughters viz. Phuljhari and Babi, and grandchildren viz. Kamla and Rangu as proforma defendants.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents herein inter alia prayed for a Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973 was void and illegal; Declaration of title of the Plaintiffs and proforma defendants over the suit property, and confirmation of their possession over the suit property, or in the alternative, for recovery of possession from the Appellants.
Since Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were minors at the time of filing the Suit, the Suit was filed through their next friend Sibu Kumhar. Respondent No. 2 is the brother of Sibu Kumhar, and Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are the nephews of Sibu Kumhar.
Sibu Kumar was subsequently discharged as next friend vide Order dated 29.08.1989, after the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein attained the age of majority.
2.5 The Trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein vide Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.1990. It was held that the Suit Property was a part of the joint family property of the common ancestor Radhanath Kumhar. Since there was no partition of the properties owned by Radhanath Kumhar between his legal heirs, the widow of Mangal Kumhar had no right to sell a part of the ancestral property. Furthermore, Mangal Kumhar’s share in the joint family property was not specified, and hence, he could not be considered to be the exclusive owner of the suit property.
The Trial Court further held that upon Mangal Kumhar’s death, his widow Etwari Kumharin did not acquire any exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property, and was not competent to transfer the suit property in favour of the Appellants vide Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973.
It was further held that Etwari Kumharin was not a necessary party in the Suit because after executing the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973, she had no interest in the suit property.
It was further held that the daughters of Mangal Kumhar and Etwari Kumharin had not executed the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973, nor given any No Objection for the sale.
The Trial Court passed a Decree declaring the Sale Deed dated 22.10.1973 to be void and illegal, and confirmed the possession of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein and the proforma defendants over the suit property. It was further directed that if the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein and the proforma defendants are found to have b
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
