Back
2013 Supreme(Pat) 241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.
Ram Chander Chourasia & Ors - Defendants-Appellants
Versus
Bijay Das & Ors - Plaintiffs-Respondents
First Appeal No.674 of 1985
Decided on: 26-02-2013
For the Appellants:Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate, with him.
For the respondent No.3:Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Ramanuj Tiwari, Advocate.
For the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5:Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of documentary evidence, the principles of adverse possession, and the burden of proof on the plaintiff in property disputes.
Headnote:
Title Suit - Property Dispute - C.S. plot No. 274 - 1. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34, 2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 91, 92, 3. Adverse Possession - Legal principles and their interpretations influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with respect to a plot of land. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove their title and possession over the suit land. The trial court's decision was reversed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, cause of action and right for the suit, limitation, and the truth of the plaintiff's claims regarding the sale and possession of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the specific terms and conditions mentioned in the sale and gift deeds. It also highlighted the principles of adverse possession and the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The first appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs to be paid by the respondents to the appellants.
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
1. The defendants appellants have filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1985 passed by the learned 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, Rohtash in Title Suit No. 149 of 1980/ 50 of 1983 whereby the court below decreed the plaintiffs respondents’ suit. The sole plaintiff respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have been substituted in his place.
2. The plaintiff respondent had filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession with respect to 12 decimal of C.S. plot No. 274 corresponding to R.S. plot No. 493. Alternatively, he also prayed for recovery of possession and injuntion.
3. The plaintiff respondent claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that C.S. plot No. 272 of C.S. Khata No. 775 belonged to Jhauri Ram. On 24.5.1919 he sold C.S. plot No. 272 to Ganesh Lal. Subsequently, Ganesh Lal by registered sale deed dated 19.9.1919 sold the same to Most. Sudeshi Kuer who was plaintiffs’ grandmother. The plaintiffs’ grandmother Sudesi Kuer executed a registered deed of gift dated 12.1.1948 in favour of plaintiff with respect to her land. According to the plaintiffs in fact Ganesh Lal had purchased 1 Bigha 5 kattha but in the sale deed it has been wrongly mentioned as 1 bigha (62 decimal) because generally the land was known as 1 bighwa land, the intention of the parties was sale and purchase of 1 bigha 5 kattha. Since there was mistake in the sale deed in favour of Ganesh Lal, the same was repeated in subsequent sale deed and the gift deed. This mistake is apparent from the sale deed of Ganesh Lal. In the eastern boundary he would have mention plot No. 274 which belonged to him but he has mention “land of Sitaram”. The orchard of Sitaram was in plot No. 290. Therefore, it shows that he has also sold plot No. 274 to Ganesh Lal. After purchase Most. Sudesi Kuer had constructed a lord Shiva temple and a well is dug. 12 to 14 years ago the plaintiff got a brick klin on it. However, the survey authority have open a khata in the name of plaintiff only for 67 decimal instead of 78 decimal and carved out 12 decimal on plot No. 274 in the name of the defendant No.1.
4. The defendants filed the contesting written statement alleging that Jhauri Barai was the owner of the land. He died in joitness with his son and grandson. He only sold 1 bigha land of plot No. 272. No portion of C.S. plot No. 274 measuring 12 decimal was ever sold to Ganesh Lal by Jhauri. Therefore, there is no question of possession of Ganesh Lal over 12 decimal of plot No. 274 arises. Likewise the sale of 12 decimal of plot No. 274 with 1 bigha of plot No. 272 by Ganesh Lal to Most. Sudesi does not arise. When Ganesh Lal had no possession and title over 12 decimal of plot No. 274 no title conferred on Most. Sudeshi therefore, she could not have executed the gift deed for 12 decimal of plot No. 274. In fact the description in the eastern boundary in the sale deed is wrong and the wrong entry will never create title over plot No. 274. Finding the possession of the defendant the survey authorities have recorded the name of the defendant over 12 decimal of C.S. plot No. 274.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed :
“(I) Is the suit as framed maintainable ?
(II) Has the plaintiff got cause of action and right for the suit ?
(III) Is the suit barred by law of limitation ?
(IV) Is the plaintiff case that on 24th May 1919 Jhauri Ram also sold 12 decimal of C.S. Plot No. 274 along with 1 bigha of C.S. Plot No. 272 to Ganesh Lal true ?
(V) Is the plaintiff case that after the purchase on 9.9.1919 this Ganesh Lal also sold 12 decimal of C.S. plot No. 274 to Mosmat Sudesi Kuar true ?
(VI) Is the plaintiff case that Ganesh Lal and after him Mosmat Sudesi Kuar and after execution of the deed of gift by Mosmat Sudesi Kuar in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got title and possession over 12 decimal of C.S. plot No.
