SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Pat) 984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Sanjogia @ Sanjoga Devi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Vijay Yadav & Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No.254 of 2009
Decided On : 6-03-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mr. Manish Kumar

The requirement for registered documents in property transfers and the weight given to oral evidence in establishing possession and rights over the property.

Headnote:

Title Suit - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100 - Deed of Gift, Registration - Oral Evidence - Relinquishment of Property - Panchayati - [Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100, Deed of Gift, Registration]

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a property dispute between the heirs of the original plaintiff and the heirs of the plaintiff's sister. The original plaintiff claimed that her mother had gifted property to both sisters, and after her sister's death, she asserted her right over the entire gifted land. The defendants contested the claim, denying the existence of a Panchayati and disputing the plaintiff's possession of the property.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court accepted the plaintiff's claim, finding that she had come into possession of the entire land after the gift, while the first appellate court rejected the claim of relinquishment by the sister, citing the lack of a registered document. The appellate court also found the oral evidence supporting the sister's possession of her share of the gifted property immediately after the gift.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the Panchayati, the relinquishment of property, and the possession of the gifted land by the parties involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for registered documents in property transfers, rejecting the claim of relinquishment due to the lack of registration. The court also gave weight to oral evidence supporting the sister's possession of her share of the gifted property.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law requiring determination.

C.A.V. ORDER


1. The petitioners who are the heirs of the original plaintiff, are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court IV, Siwan in Title Appeal No. 54 of 1993, whereby he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.05.1993 passed by learned 5th Sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 276/1978; in the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Learned Trial Court had decreed the suit holding the title of the original plaintiff over the suit property. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Ram Ekbal Choudhary had two daughters, Dhanwatia and Rajwatia (the plaintiff). Munari was the wife of Ram Ekbal Choudhary. The parents of the original plaintiff were originally residents of village Hathauri. They however settled at village Mahpur. The original plaintiff (Rajwatia) was married from that village (Mahpur) and her sister Dhanwatia got married with the cousin of the plaintiff’s husband, of the same village i.e. Kaushar. The defendants 1st set / Respondent 1st set are the heirs of said Dhanwatia, as Dhanwatia at the time of institution of the suit was no more. Plaintiff’s case before trial court was that parents of the plaintiff and said Dhanwatia had no male issue and after marriage of both the sisters i.e. Dhanwatia and Rajwatia (Plaintiff), there was no person left at village Mahpur to look after and take care of their mother Munari. Munari is said to have donated, as per plaintiff’s case, her entire landed property admeasuring 4 Bihgas 15 Kathas and 10 Dhurs to both the sisters by a deed of gift executed on 31.01.1951 and put them in possession over the said property. There is no dispute between the parties up to this stage. The dispute arises thereafter.

3. Plaintiff’s further case was that she and her husband, after some time, left their village Kauhsar and settled at village Mahpur to serve her parents. Dhanwatia, the plaintiff’s sister, however remained at village Kaushar and never came in possession over the gifted property. The original plaintiff asserted that she took her parents for pilgrimage and performed last rites of her mother at her own expense. The plaintiff further pleaded that after death of Dhanwatia in 1968, her husband attempted to grab certain part of the gifted property, leading to a Panchayati held in the year 1972 wherein it was decided that the plaintiff, in fact, had served her mother, incurred all expenses of pilgrimage, funeral and last rites and she had been in continuous physical possession of the entire gifted land included the part gifted in favour of Dhanwatia and therefore, the property should go to the plaintiff; but since gift deed was executed in name of plaintiff and her sister Dhanwatia both, so as to quell the matter, some amount should be given to the defendant 1st Set. It was decided in said Panchayati to pay a sum of rupees two thousand to the defendant 1st set which amount was paid. It was also case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s sister Dhanwatia had already relinquished her right by executing a deed of relinquishment in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The contesting defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement and denied the plea of Panchayati having ever been held. They also took a plea that some dispute had arisen with respect to land and, therefore, it was decided ultimately that mother of Defendant No. 1 (Dhanwatia) would alone remain in possession over the gifted land and land of village Kaushar will remain with the plaintiff and her husband and accordingly they came in possession over the respective properties of village Mahpur and village Kaushar. Learned trial Court on the basis of rival pleadings framed altogether four issues including issue No. 3 which reads as follows:- “Is the story of Panchayati and payment of money by the plaintiff to the defendant is correct and whether defendant’s story with respect to exchange of property of Kausha






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top