Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Ram Bachan Devi
Versus
Yogendra Pd. Singh
Decided On : AUGUST 17, 2010
Title Suit - Passing of Title, Consideration Amount, Possession - Ext. K - The court discussed the passing of title, consideration amount, and possession as stipulated in the sale deed Ext. K. The court reversed the findings of the lower court and held that no consideration amount passed to the plaintiff as stipulated in the sale deed. The court also found that the passing of title was dependent on the payment of the consideration amount and that the plaintiff had failed to prove payment to the rehandars and redemption of rehan deeds. The court further reversed the findings of the lower court and held that the title had not passed to the plaintiff based on the sale deed. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a title suit claiming relief for the declaration of title, possession confirmation, and mean profit. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant No. 1, who was the father-in-law of the plaintiff, had sold the suit property to the plaintiff and that the defendant No. 1 later cancelled the sale deed and executed a gift deed in favor of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff claimed that the title had passed to him and that he had been dispossessed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the consideration amount passed to the defendant as stipulated in the sale deed. The court also found that the passing of title was dependent on the payment of the consideration amount and that the plaintiff had failed to prove payment to the rehandars and redemption of rehan deeds. The court further found that the title had not passed to the plaintiff based on the sale deed. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: The issues framed by the court included whether the plaintiff had any cause of action for the suit, whether the suit was maintainable, whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the plaintiff had acquired right, title, and possession as alleged, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiff to prove the passing of the consideration amount as stipulated in the sale deed, the dependency of passing title on the payment of the consideration amount, and the failure of the plaintiff to prove payment to the rehandars and redemption of rehan deeds.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
1. The defendants-appellants have filed this first appeal against the judgment dated 30.1.1988 and the decree following thereupon signed on 17.2.1988 by Sri. G. Mahton, the learned Sub Judge 10th, Patna in Title Suit No. 142 of 1977 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent#25;s suit.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid tile suit No. 142 of 1977 claiming relief that on declaration of the plaintiff#25;s title and want of title of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the lands described in scheduled-I to the plaint, the possession of the plaintiff be confirmed and in the alternative, the possession may be delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for mean profit from 25.7.1985 and also prayed for declaration that gift dated 12.1.1968 is forged, fabricated, created document and did not confer any title on the defendant No. 2.
3. The plaintiff claims the aforesaid relief on the facts which may be stated in brief that the defendant Yogeshwar Singh is father-in-law of the plaintiff. Yogeshwar Singh had four daughters. The second daughter Sachita @ Chinta Mani Devi is the wife of plaintiff. The fourth daughter Ram Bachan Devi is the defendant No. 2. Yogeshwar Singh himself is defendant No. 1. It may be mentioned here that Yogeshwar Singh defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal and his name has been expunged. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 was in need of money so he took loan by executing several mortgage deeds, hand notes and Hath Pahicha and thereafter again when he was in need of money he sold the suit property for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and a registered sale deed was executed on 4.2.1963. By this sale deed 7.05 acres of land described in schedule-I of the plaint was transferred. After execution of the sale deed possession was delivered. According to the terms of the sale deed substantial part of the consideration amount was to be paid to the mortgagees/creditors. The plaintiff paid the debts mentioned in the sale deed what he was liable to pay and has redeemed some of the mortgage himself and some by paying rehan money through the defendant No. 1. The mortgagees returned the deeds which remained in possession of the defendant No. 1 who is father-in-law of the plaintiff.
4. The further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had to pay Rs. 1600/- for redemption of mortgage in favour of Munni Sao although it was recited only Rs. 1100/- in the sale deed. Bhuneshwar Singh, the brother of the defendant No. 1 jointly with defendant No. 1 executed seven rehan deeds in favour of Sheonarain Singh on 7.6.1946 for Rs.1000/- each but out of that the plaintiff was to pay only the consideration of two rehan deeds. The said Bhuwneshwar Singh had taken Rs. 1000/- and paid to Shiv Narain Singh on 11.6.1985 and granted a receipt in token of the same. The defendant No. 1 took Rs. 500/- from the plaintiff on 28.6.1965 and paid it to Ramdeo Ram and Bandhu Ram for redemption of rehan deed dated 3.5.1960 and 11.6.1965. Further he took Rs. 325/- from the plaintiff and paid it to Basudeo Ram and Bandhu Ram for redemption of rehan deed 27.7.1961. Likewise he again took Rs. 800/- on 13.6.1965 from the plaintiff for redemption of the rehan deed dated 7.7.1949 in the name of Charitra Tahakur. Besides the above, the defendant No. 1 took a sum of Rs. 650/- for payment to Musafir Singh and Satyanarain Singh for redemption of their rehan deeds.
5. The further case is that the defendant No. 1 had also taken loan from Shivdhar Dayal, Advocate who filed money suit No. 83 of 1962 which was decreed and the plaintiff paid the decreetal amount through the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 also took loan of Rs. 1010/- from one Damodar singh and executed hand note which was paid by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 had also taken loan from Jagdamb Sahai who also filed money suit which was decreed and the plaintiff paid the decreetal amount. In the manner aforesaid, the plaintiff p
AI
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
