Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Meena Devi, Daughter of Late Rajendra Ram – Appellant
Versus
Sushila Devi, D/o Late Ramji Ram – Respondent
Second Appeal No.237 of 2008
Decided on : 29-02-2024
CIVIL PROCEDURE - PARTITION AND TITLE DISPUTE - CPC 100, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - The court discussed the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for appeals on substantial questions of law. It also referenced the Specific Relief Act regarding the validity of documents and the Transfer of Property Act concerning the sale of immovable property. The court interpreted these provisions to determine the legitimacy of the sale deed in question and the implications of limitation on the plaintiffs' claims, ultimately influencing the decision to uphold the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the sale deed void and affirming their joint title and possession of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and partition of a residential property, claiming it was jointly owned with the defendants. They alleged that a sale deed executed in 1967 was forged and sought to set it aside. The defendants contended that a partition had occurred in 1961, and the sale deed was valid.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing their joint title and possession. The first appellate court reversed this, declaring the sale deed valid and the suit barred by limitation. However, the higher court found that the first appellate court erred in its assessment of evidence and the application of limitation, particularly regarding the forged nature of the sale deed.
Issues: 1) Whether the suit was maintainable? 2) Did the plaintiffs have a valid cause of action? 3) Was the suit barred by limitation? 4) Was the sale deed forged and inoperative? 5) Was there unity of title and possession?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first appellate court failed to properly consider the evidence regarding the sale deed's validity and the plaintiffs' knowledge of it. It emphasized that the plaintiffs were not barred by limitation due to the fraudulent nature of the sale deed, which had been declared void. The court reaffirmed the trial court's findings regarding joint title and possession.
Final Decision: The higher court set aside the first appellate court's judgment, reinstating the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming their joint title and possession of the property.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2008 and 29.03.2008, respectively, passed in Title Appeal No. 53 of 2005 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Nalanda reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2005 and 27.10.2005, respectively, passed in Title Suit No. 162 of 2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Biharsharif (Nalanda) whereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants.
2. The appellants were the plaintiffs/respondents and the respondents herein were defendants/appellants before the learned courts below. The plaintiffs before the learned trial court filed the suit for declaration of their title on the suit property mentioned in the plaint and also for partition of suit land to the extent of 50 paise and to carve out their shares by appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner and also to declare the sale-deed dated 27.09.1967 forged and fabricated and also to set aside the sale deed. The suit property as described in the plaint is a residential house comprising of five shops bearing Holding No (old) 419 and 420 Holding No. (new) 549, 550 and 551 situated in Ward No. 28, its old Ward No. 8 of Mohalla Alamganj, Biharsharif, Nalanda measuring 54 feet from north to south and 30 feet from east to west which is which is bounded by road on norther and southern sides, east and west-NIL.
Case of the Plaintiffs:-
3. One Ram Kishun Ram @ Fateh Ram was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, who had purchased the suit house from the income of joint family fund and came into its possession along with his brothers Lalu Ram and Nandu Ram. With subsequent partition, the suit house exclusively came in the joint possession of plaintiffs and defendants. Further case of the plaintiffs is that said Ram Kishun Ram @ Fateh Ram had four sons, namely, Ramji Ram-defendant no. 1, Punna Rma, Nageshwar Ram and Rajendra Ram-plaintiff no. 1 and two daughters Sabiya Devi and Jamuni Devi. Out of six siblings, Punna Ram, Nageshwar Ram and Jamuni Devi died issue-less and the wife of Ram Kishun Ram @ Fateh Ram died during his life time. Sabiya Devi was married with one Gopal Ram who has been made defendant no. 13 in the suit. Further case of the plaintiffs is that Ram Kishun Ram was the karta of the joint family and after his death, defendant no. 1 Ramji Ram became karta of the joint family and had been managing the entire affairs of the family. The plaintiffs and defendants were residing in the suit house along with their family members whereas shops existing in the suit house had been let out on rent to different tenants and the rent had been realized by defendant no. 1. When the plaintiffs demanded proportionate share in the rent, the defendant no. 1 did not pay any heed and evaded the matter and finally refused to give share to the plaintiffs. It has further been pleaded that when the plaintiffs asked the defendants to start their mess separately and also for repair of the house, then the defendants filed a case in Laheri Police Station and after inquiry report was submitted by the police for starting proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against both the parties. It has further been pleaded that the plaintiff no. 1 had full faith and confidence on defendant no. 1, who used to take Left Thumb Impression (LTI) of plaintiff no.1 on blank papers and even on papers to be used in Government Department. If defendant no. 1 had manufactured any deed with the help of those papers, the same would be deemed to be illegal, void, not having binding effect and the defendants cannot take any advantage from it. The plaintiffs have claimed that the suit house is still joint and the plaintiffs have got unity of tile and unity of possession over the suit house along with defendants in which their shares are to the extent of half
The court established that a sale deed can be declared void if proven to be forged, and that limitation does not apply when the party was unaware of the document's existence due to fraud.
A document creating a future division of property does not require registration and is admissible; previous partition must be proven by clear evidence to validate a sale deed executed beyond lawful s....
A suit filed to declare a sale deed null and void is barred by limitation if not filed within three years from the date of registration, and must disclose a valid cause of action.
The court emphasized that evidence cannot be adduced contrary to the arguments in a written document and held that the relief of partition cannot be granted in the face of a document registered lawfu....
Point of law: “Conduct of indifference or Acquiescence and held that, it is settled law that an estoppel may arise as against persons who have not willfully made any misrepresentation, and whose cond....
When suit is barred by limitation, same ought to have been considered by First Appellate Court.
A registered sale deed, while presumptive, does not confer title over property without substantiated evidence of prior ownership and possession.
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
