Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Radhamani Devi W/o Late Devi Lal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Hemant Horo S/o Late Poulna Horo – Respondent
S.A. No. 50 of 1996
Decided On : 31-01-2023
adverse possession - property dispute - [Indian Evidence Act, Section 101; Roop Singh (Dead) through LRs. vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through LRs. (2000) 3 SCC 708] - The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the plea of adverse possession is not consistent with the plea of right of possession on the basis of the sale deed. The court also emphasized that the weakness of the defendant's witness cannot be a ground for reversing the findings of two fact-finding courts. The onus lies upon the person claiming possession under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court found that the concurrent findings of the two courts were not perverse and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over a property, alleging that he had purchased the land and was in possession, while the defendants were obstructing his cultivation. The defendants denied the appellant's claims, asserting their own possession and challenging the validity of the appellant's title.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the appellant failed to prove the alleged Sindotari Gift and the validity of the sale deed. The court also rejected the plea of adverse possession, emphasizing that it is not consistent with the plea of right of possession on the basis of the sale deed. The court found that the weakness of the defendant's witness cannot be a ground for reversing the findings of two fact-finding courts.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the alleged Sindotari Gift, the legality of the sale deed, and the nature of the suit lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the plea of adverse possession is not consistent with the plea of right of possession on the basis of the sale deed. The court also highlighted that the weakness of the defendant's witness cannot be a ground for reversing the findings of two fact-finding courts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 09.04.1996 and the decree following thereupon signed on 25.05.1996, passed in Title Appeal No. 111 of 1993, by the VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissing the said appeal and thereby confirming the judgment dated 16.09.1993 and the decree signed on 25.09.1993, passed in Title Suit No. 143 of 1989, by the learned Sub Judge-IIIrd, Ranchi.
3. The suit was instituted by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession over the suit property, appended in Schedule-A of the plaint. Further prayer was made to refrain the defendants by way of permanent injunction from creating obstruction and nuisance by use of force in his cultivation work and other reliefs, for which, the appellant/plaintiff found to be entitled.
4. The said suit was decided by the learned trial court by judgment dated 16.09.1993 and considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, the same was dismissed without cost. Aggrieved by that, the appellant/plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 111 of 1993, which was decided by the judgment dated 09.04.1996, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned appellate court. Aggrieved by that, the present second appeal has been filed.
5. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit stating therein that the suit land has boon recorded as Majhias land and the same was given by the ex-landlord to Smt. Savitri Kumari Devi, wife of Thakur Jogendra Nath Sahdeo as Sindutari gift and since then she has been coming as owner of the suit land. The said Savitri Devi gifted the suit property along with other land to her daughter Mangleshwari Kumari Devi by registered deed dated 27th September, 1962 and the said deed of gift was accepted by Thakur Jogendra Nath Sahdeo, father of Mangleshwari Devi on behalf of his daughter. Subsequently, the plaintiff has purchased the suit land from Smt. Mangleshwari Kumari Devi by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 19th August, 1985 for consideration of Rs 9000/-and since after purchase the plaintiff is coming in possession of the suit land, got his name mutated in the office of Circle officer Namkum and is regularly paying rent to the State. The defendants have got no concerned with the suit land nor they have any title over the same still they have formed illegal attitude with sole object to harass the members of schedule tribes with object to leave the village and that they will be forced since the plaintiff is not acting on the advice of defendant, the defendants are bent upon to harass him and they created obstruction in cultivation of the plaintiff although the plaintiff reported to police but the police sent report for starting proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. The defendants have got no faith in law and are bent upon to prevent the plaintiff from cultivating the suit land, hence the plaintiff has got no option but to file the suit for the reliefs.
6. The defendants have filed three sets of written statement and the sum and substance of their case is that the suit is not maintainable, the suit is barred by law of limitation, principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and adverse possession. According to them the suit land has not been recorded as Majhias, rather the same has been recorded as Bakast Malik in the R.S. record of right in the name of Thakurain Ram Kumari, with right to receive rent under khata no. 1 of village Khelgaon, which comes under khewat no. 3 which is Mundari Khutkatti of the defendants since before R.S. and the defendants are continuing in peaceful possession over the suit land. Their further case is that the allegat
The plea of adverse possession is not consistent with the plea of right of possession on the basis of the sale deed. The weakness of the defendant's witness cannot be a ground for reversing the findi....
The court upheld the principle that prior judgments declaring deeds void are binding, affirming the plaintiff's title against claims of adverse possession.
An unregistered gift deed does not confer title to real property, necessitating proper registration and the inclusion of all necessary parties in a suit for declaration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff was not required to ask for possession when the property was in custodia legis, and the defendants had acquired title by adverse....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of gift deeds under the Transfer of Property Act, the Indian Evidence Act, and the inheritance of joint family property under the Hind....
[The court established that land declared as protected forest under the Indian Forest Act cannot be claimed by individuals without valid title, and that any prior claims based on unregistered documen....
The principle of res judicata applies when the same parties have litigated substantially the same issue in a previous suit, barring re-litigation of those issues.
The principle of res judicata applies where previous judgments on the same issue bind parties, regardless of claims involving part of the land. Judicial findings must reflect conscious application to....
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
