Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
Shri Madhurendra Kumar Singh, S/o. Late Kedar Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Asha Devi, W/o. Shri Ram Vinod Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 140 of 2021
Decided On : 15-04-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Mr. Suman Kumar Verma, Mr. Anish Kumar, Mr. Amresh Kumar Mishra.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey.
IMPORTANT POINT
In eviction suits, the court can consider the question of title if it is disputed by the tenant, and the plaintiff can seek alternative relief under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC even if the primary claim is not established.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - EVICTION AND TITLE DISPUTE - CPC SECTION 100, BBC ACT 1982 - The court discussed the applicability of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, emphasizing that the question of title can be considered in eviction suits if the tenant disputes the landlord's title. The court interpreted Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC, allowing for alternative relief in cases where the primary claim is not established. The court concluded that the plaintiff had valid title over the disputed land, and the defendants were trespassers, thus justifying the eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
Smt. Asha Devi filed a Title Suit for declaration of her right and title over disputed land, claiming that a sale deed executed in favor of the defendants was void due to lis pendens. The defendants denied the landlord-tenant relationship and claimed ownership based on a sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that the plaintiff had valid title over certain plots of land but failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship. The appellate court affirmed this, ruling that the defendants were trespassers and had no legal claim to the property.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the suit; 2. Validity of the plaintiff's cause of action; 3. Relationship of landlord and tenant; 4. Title over the disputed land; 5. Eviction of defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in eviction suits under the BBC Act, the title can be considered if the tenant disputes the landlord's title. The court also confirmed that the plaintiff's title was established through valid sale deeds, and the defendants were found to be trespassers.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's judgment that the plaintiff had title over the disputed land and ordering the eviction of the defendants.
JUDGMENT :
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.
This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2019 and 06.01.2020 respectively passed in Title Appeal No.67 of 2015 by learned Additional District Judge-1, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’) whereby the said title appeal has been dismissed and affirmed the judgment dated 26.09.2015 and decree dated 10.10.2015 passed in Title Suit No. 424 of 2004 by learned Sub-Judge-4th, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) partly decreeing the suit on contest without cost in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 Smt. Asha Devi filed Title Suit No. 424 of 2004 for declaration that the plaintiff has got right and title over the disputed land mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint and sale deed no. 26560 dated 16.12.2005 in favour of defendant no.1 with respect to disputed land which is hit by lis pendens is void, collusive, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prayed for declaration that defendant 1st party/appellants herein have been tenant in the suit premises and decree for eviction of the defendant nos.1 and 2 from the disputed land and the house standing thereon on the ground of personal necessity of plaintiff. It is further prayed for damages in favour of the plaintiff from the date of sale deed dated 07.10.2003 till delivery of possession and cost of the suit and also a decree for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be deemed fit and entitled be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant nos.1 and 2.
3. The subject matter of dispute is the land with building standing thereon with respect to R.S.P. Nos. 143 (area 20 decimal), 142 (area 3 decimal), 147 (area 17 decimal) and 144 (area 6 decimal) total area 46 decimals situated in Village – Brahampura, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
3.1. The recorded tenants of R.S.P. No. 143 area 20 decimals, namely, Shri Nand Kishore Singh, Baleshwar Singh, Rajeshwar Singh, Deo Narayan Singh, Laxmeshwar Singh and Nageshwar Singh have title and possession thereon sold away the same to Smt. Sharda Devi (defendant no.3) by two registered sale deeds dated 10.03.1980 against the consideration and put her in possession.
3.2. The legal heirs of recorded tenant Dwarika Singh of R.S.P. No.147, namely, Ram Kishore Singh, Baidyanath Singh and Bhagrashan Devi sold away an area of 17 decimals out of the said plots to Smt. Sharda Devi (defendant no.3) by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 01.10.1980 against the consideration amount and put her in possession thereof.
3.3. The lands of R.S.P. No.144 was the raiyati lands of Sita Ram Singh and Hardeo Singh sons of Ram Pratap Singh and they were in possession of the same although the R.S.P. No.144 was recorded in the name of the State of Bihar under Khata No.102 and in remark columns, their names were recorded in the khatiyan. Sita Ram Singh died issueless. Hardeo Singh conveyed title and possession over lands of R.S.P. No.142 (3 decimal recorded in the name of Sita Ram Singh & Hardeo Singh), 144 (6 decimal recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar) along with 136 (11 decimal) (which is not the subject matter of dispute in this proceeding) to Prabhunath Singh, Kedar Nath Singh and Rameshwar Prasad Singh by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 11.04.1977 and put them in possession thereof who sold the said lands to Sharda Devi (defendant 3) for consideration and conveyed the title and possession over the same vide registered sale deed dated 24.02.1982.
3.4. The case of plaintiff is that by virtue of aforesaid five registered sale deeds, defendant no.3 acquired right, title and possession over an area of 46 decimals in dispute having got her name mutated, began paying rent and getting receipt for the same. The defendant no.1 and his brother defendant no.2 being contractor
