IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Sheema Ali Khan, J.
Hemwanti Devi, Wife of Late Sachidanand Singh, Resident of Village + Post Manpur, P.S. Dighwara, District- Chapra at present residing at A/19 Secretariate Colony, Kankarbagh, District Patna-20. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. & Ors - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8879 of 2009
Decided on : 6-12-2012
Forgery - Property Dispute - Lok Adalat Act - Section 20(1) and 20(2) - The judgment discusses the forged signature of the deceased in a property transfer document and the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in settling disputes. It highlights the court's power to remand a matter back to Lok Adalat and the limitations of Lok Adalat's adjudicatory function.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to quash an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna, alleging that it was based on a forged affidavit. The dispute revolves around the transfer of a property and allegations of fraud and forgery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a notarized affidavit by the deceased accepting the property transfer, but the petitioner alleged the signature was forged. The court discussed the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat and the power to remand a matter back for consideration of fraud.
Issues: The main issues were the alleged forged signature in a property transfer document and the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in settling disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it can remand a matter back to Lok Adalat, but the Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory or judicial function. It emphasized the limitations of Lok Adalat's role in settling disputes.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna, and allowed the writ petition.
The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna dated 9.9.2008 on the ground that it has been filed on the basis of a forged and false affidavit purportedly signed by the husband of the writ petitioner. The then Patna Improvement Trust had allocated House No. L-2/19 in the name of late Ramdeo Prasad Singh, the father-in-law of the writ petitioner on 26.3.1962. After his death the house was transferred in the name of late Sachidanand Singh, husband of the writ petitioner by the then Patna Regional Development Authority (now the Patna Municipal Corporation). The said transfer was made through an agreement dated 4.3.1996. Respondent No. 3, Renu Jha was allowed to live in the said house by late Sachidanand Singh.
2. Late Sachidanand Singh fell sick and was being treated for his illness at Mahavir Cancer Sansthan. Ultimately he died due to Cancer on 8.10.2008 leaving behind his wife and three sons. It is the case of the opposite party that during his life time, apparently late Sachidanand Singh had applied for permission to sell his property i.e. the flat in dispute to Renu Jha, respondent no. 3 and the said permission is said to have been granted on 30.10.2001 by the Patna Regional Development Authority. The petitioner contends that the said letter of permission bearing the signature of her husband is a forged signature, prepared by respondent no. 3 in order to surreptitiously grab the property i.e. the flat by paying a pittance in lieu of the said transfer.
3. The cause of action arose when respondent no. 3 moved an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat in which it has been pleaded that she lives with her husband in Flat No. L-2/19. It is her case that being satisfied by her husband?s contribution in performing Puja and doing all other religious and social functions, Late Sachidanand Singh had transferred the property for a token amount to her. Now that late Sachidanand Singh has died she fears that there may be some dispute raised by his wife and sons regarding the said transfer and, therefore, has made a prayer that the Lok Adalat may issue notices to the parties and settle the matter in order to avoid further litigation. It has also been pleaded that on various dates as per the direction of late Sachidanand Singh, she has paid a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- to the eldest son of late Sachidanand Singh namely Jitendra Singh in front of her husband and other witnesses.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that late Sachidanand Singh had appeared in person before the Permanent Lok Adalat and had filed an affidavit sworn by him accepting the fact that he had decided to transfer the house in question to Renu Jha on a token amount in lieu of the services rendered by her husband, who used to look after the religious and spiritual rights and functions of Late Sachidanand Singh. It is said that the land was given by way of „Brahman Dakchhina?. It is accepted by Renu Jha that Late Sachidanand Singh was suffering from Cancer and was undergoing treatment at Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, despite which, he was able to appear before the Lok Adalat on the date so fixed.
5. This Court while hearing this matter called for the original records in this case. At the outset it may be clarified that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not been constituted under Section 22 of the Lok Adalat Act. However, in each judicial district, there is Lok Adalat which runs like a permanent Court. Therefore, there should not be any confusion on this aspect of the matter.
6. On going through the records, this Court finds there is a notarized affidavit by late Sachidanand Singh in which he has purportedly accepted that he had sold House No. L-2/19 situated in Mohalla Krishnapuri which measures 1078 Sq. ft. and has a house built on the aforesaid area. Along with the house he has accepted that he has transferred 413 Sq. ft. of open land to Renu Jha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.