Back
2006 Supreme(J&K) 214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Mohini Devi - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar & Ors. - Respondent
CSA No. 25/1999
Decided On : 07 October, 2006
Advocate For Appellant: Virender Bhat
Advocate For Respondent: J.S. Kotwal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appellate court's power to frame additional issues and the admissibility of additional grounds in appeal, particularly in cases involving subsequent legal developments.
Headnote:
Gift Deed - Property Rights - Agrarian Reforms Act, Transfer of Property Act - Section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the validity of the gift deed executed by Jodh Ram in favor of the respondents in respect of agricultural land and its compliance with the Agrarian Reforms Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The court also considered the issue of possession and the widow's charge on the property, ultimately upholding the lower court's judgment and decree.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two civil second appeals against judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the additional district judge. The first appeal concerned a suit filed by Shanti Devi for the declaration of a gift deed as void, while the second appeal involved a suit filed by Jodh Ram for the cancellation of a gift deed and a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court were legal and did not require interference. It dismissed the first appeal and upheld the impugned judgment and decree. In the second appeal, the court found that the appellate court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction and remanded the case back to the appellate court for further consideration.
Issues: The issues involved in the first appeal included the right of maintenance charge over the suit land, the validity of the gift deed, and the cause of action. In the second appeal, the issues included whether the plaintiff had lost his senses, the validity of the gift deed, and the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the Agrarian Reforms Act, the Transfer of Property Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure. It also considered the powers of the appellate court to frame additional issues and the admissibility of additional grounds in appeal.
Final Decision: The first appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and decree were upheld. The second appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside, remanding the case back to the appellate court for further consideration.
2. Civil Second Appeal No. 26/1999 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th of April 1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Kishtwar in Civil First Appeal No. 5/Appeal titled as Shanti Devi and anr v. Suresh Kumar and ors whereby and where under the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff came to be dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30th of July 1997 passed by trial Court (Sub-judge) in terms of the suit titled as Jodh Ram v. Suresh Kumar and ors came to be confirmed, which shall be hereinafter referred to as "impugned judgment".
3. Shanti Devi died during the pendency of the appeal and respondent No. 4, Mohini Devi came to be transposed as appellant in Civil Second Appeal No. 25/1999. Mohini Devi was already figuring as appellant No. 2 in Civil Second Appeal No. 26/1999 and accordingly necessary entries came to be made by the Registry in the cause title in terms of order dated 20th of July 2000.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE OF CSA No. 25/1999.
4. Shanti Devi filed a suit for declaration declaring gift deed dated 27th of July 1983 executed by one Jodh Ram (who was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the suit) in favour of defendants respondents 1 to 3 in respect of land mentioned in the Gift deed falling under Survey No. 233 Min, 357, 613, 658, 188 and 784 comprising Khewat No. 30 situated at village Lachkhazana void and ineffective and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and liable to be set aside as the claim of plaintiff-Shanti Devi for maintenance was a charge on the Estate of Jodh Ram, husband of plaintiff.
5. Further it is averred in the plaint that Mohini Devi, daughter of Shanti Devi and Jodh Ram had married with one Ashok Kumar against the wishes of her father, Jodh Ram which constrained him to shift to the house of his brother, during the course of which Jodh Ram executed a gift deed in favour of defendants-respondents I to 3 without any right. Jodh Ram could not transfer the suit property in favour of respondents 1 to 3 because Shanti Devi-plaintiff s claim for maintenance was the first charge.
6. The defendants-respondents I to 3 resisted the suit. Following issues came to be framed:
"1. Whether plaintiff has right of maintenance charge over the suit land? If so, how? O. P. P.
2. On proof of Issue No. I whether the gift deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendants No. I to 3 is inoperative against her interest? O. P. P
3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? O. P. D.
4. Relief."
7. The parties led evidence and after hearing the arguments, the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30th of September 1997. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Plaintiff- Shanti Devi preferred First Civil Appeal before Additional District Judge, Kishtwar and it came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment. All the issues framed were questions of fact. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have determined all the issues.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE OF CSA No. 26/1999:
8. Jodh Ram filed a suit against defendants 1 to 3 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Kishtwar for cancellation of a gift deed executed on 27th of April 1983, and also sought for a decree of permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from causing interference with the possession over the suit land and also restraining them from raising any construction over the said land, on the grounds taken in the memo of plaint
