Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.
Bhola Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Nirpath Mahto & Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 199 of 2003
Decided on : 16-10-2015
Property Dispute - Sale Deed - Section 92 of Evidence Act - [FACT OF THE CASE] The suit property was claimed by the plaintiffs based on transfers made through registered sale deeds. The defendant contested the suit claiming that the original sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs was a nullity as the property had already been transferred to another party. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal, holding that the defendant failed to prove any mistake in the sale deed. [ISSUES] The substantial question of law was whether the first appellate court wrongly applied the provisions of section 92 of Evidence Act. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court found that the first appellate court wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 92 of the Evidence Act and ignored material evidence available on record. [FINAL DECISION] The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, affirming the trial court's decision.
Amitav K. Gupta, J:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2003 and 20.02.2003 respectively passed in Title Appeal no.2 of 2002/109 of 2002 whereby the 6th Addl. District Judge, Giridih allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001 and 07.01.2002 respectively whereby Title Suit no.63/97 was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Giridih.
2. This original suit i.e. Title Suit no.63 of 1997 was instituted by plaintiffs, namely, Nirpat Mahto, Bhikho Mahto, Karman Mahto and Sukhdeo Mahto who are respondent no.1 to 4 herein. Bhikho Mahto died pendente lite and is substituted by his legal representatives. Original defendant no.1-Bhola Mahto is the appellant herein. Defendant nos.2 and 3, namely, Bibi Madina Khatoon and Bibi Jahira Khatoon were proforma defendants and are respondent nos.5 and 6 herein. Bibi Zahira Khatoon died pendentelite and is substituted by her legal representatives.
Brief facts of the case is that the suit property of plot no.270, Khata no.13 was recorded in the name of Gulab Miyan who was survived by two sons, namely, Imamuddin and Rahmat Ali. Each inherited half a share in the said property. Imamuddin transferred his half share in the name of his wife-Bibi Rafidan in lieu of dower. Likewise, Rahmat Ali, plaintiff's son, transferred his half share in the name of Bibi Zahira, his daughter-in-law. Both the transfers were made by the registered deed in the year 1944 and 1954 respectively.
It is claimed that the plaintiff purchased the interest of Bibi Zahira through registered sale deed and Bibi Rafidan also transferred her interest in plot no.270 in favour of her daughter-Bibi Madina. The interest of Bibi Madina, transferee of Bibi Rafidan, is claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiffs in the year 1997. It is alleged that when the plaintiff tried to erect a fence over the entire purchased land the defendant no.1 obstructed to the construction. It is alleged that the defendant claimed title over the suit property on the basis of a bogus document. Consequent thereto, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property.
3. Defendant no.1-Bhola Mahto, the present appellant, contested the suit claiming that Bibi Rafidan had transferred her entire interest in Plot no. 270, Khata No. 13 through registered sale deed dated 11.11.1954 in the name of Bharat Narayan Lal, therefore she did not have any right or authority to transfer any portion of land of Plot no. 270. Accordingly, the alleged sale deed of the year 1966 executed by Bibi Rafidan in favour of her daughter is a nullity in the eye of law. The defendant no. 1 claimed to have purchased the entire interest of Bibi Rafidan in Plot no. 270 through registered sale deed from the heirs of Bharat Narayan Lal.
4. The trial court after considering and discussing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that since the property had already been transferred in the name of Bharat Narayan Lal as far back in the year 1954, hence the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Bibi Rafidan in favour of Bibi Madina or any subsequent transfer by the said purchaser in 1997 shall not convey any title over the property which had already been transferred to Bharat Narayan Lal by registered sale deed dated 11.11.1954. The certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of Bharat Narayan Lal is marked Ext. B. Ext. B/1, is the subsequent sale deed executed by the successor in interest of Bharat Narayan Lal, in favour of defendant no. 1/appellant.
5. The first appellate court, after hearing the appeal, allowed the appeal observing therein that no reliance can be placed on Ext. B. It has been held that the original sale deed has not been brought on record and certified copy of the sale deed has not been properly proved. It has also been observed that in the sale deed (Ext.-B) 0.18 acres of land within Plot no. 27
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
