Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Smt. Shanti Devi and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sheo Prasad Sahu and ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 80 of 2010
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Gift Deeds - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The judgment discusses the validity of gift deeds, the requirement of attesting witnesses, adverse possession, and the inheritance of joint family property. The court emphasizes the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the Indian Evidence Act, and the Hindu Succession Act in determining the validity of the gift deeds and the rights of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of the validity of gift deeds and eviction of the defendants from the suit premises. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, citing lack of proof for the gift deeds and adverse possession by the defendants. The appellants challenged the decision on substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gift deeds were valid as they were registered and did not require attesting witnesses. It also held that the suit property was not joint family property and the defendants did not have the right to transfer it. The court rejected the finding of adverse possession due to lack of pleading and evidence.
Issues: Validity of gift deeds, adverse possession, inheritance of joint family property
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of due execution of registered instruments, the requirements for proving gift deeds, and the inheritance of joint family property under the Hindu Succession Act. It also highlighted the need for specific pleading and evidence for adverse possession.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, and that of the trial court was restored. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellants are the plaintiffs and the appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of reversal passed by the District Judge, Latehar in T.A. No. 02 of 2008 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Munsif, Latehar in Title Suit No. 13/2004.
2. The parties shall be referred to by their original placement in the suit and will include their legal representatives substituted at different stages.
3. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration of the deeds of gift executed bearing No. 5561 dated 06.06.1980 and No.9564 dated 26.08.1988 executed by Adhikari Devi in favour of plaintiff No.1 were legal and valid and the plaintiff no.1 acquired valid right title, and possession over the same including the suit property. A further declaration has been sought that the Sale Deed no.1374 and 1375 both dated 25.08.1982 executed by Aashnandan Singh were void ab initio. The defendant be evicted from the suit premises and plaintiff no.1 be restored in possession.
4. The suit land comprises of two shop rooms and land enclosed with boundary situated in village Balumath under District Latehar in a total area of 0.12 acres out of which 0.10 acres was in C.S. Plot No.1350 under C.S. Khata No.37 and 0.02 acre was in Plot No.1349 under Khata No.261.
5. The suit land appertaining to C.S. Plot No.1350, was recorded in the name of Lagan Basi Kuar and C.S. Plot No.1349 area 12 decimals of Khata No.261 was recorded in the name of Deoki Nandan Singh. Both these raiyats were in right title and possession of Plot No.1350 and 1349. Both of them died in the year 1981 and 1982 respectively leaving behind a daughter Adhikari Devi who was married to Jagdish Singh. Thus, Adhikari Devi inherited the land and came in possession of the entire land held by her parents and got it mutated in her name by Mutation Case No.17 of 1982-83.
6. Adhikari Devi died in the year 1994 leaving behind two sons namely Aashnandan Singh and Vijay Nandan Singh. Aashnandan Singh died in the year 2002 leaving behind his heirs Defendants 2nd Set. During her life time, Adhikari Devi through the two registered deeds of gift conveyed the suit properties to plaintiffno.1 (w/o Vijay Nandan Singh) bearing No. 5561 dated 06.06.1980 and No. 9564 dated 26.08.1988. The donee duly accepted the gift and came in possession of the properties so gifted and got her name mutated by order dated 05.02.1990 passed in Mutation Case No.311 of 1989–90. Against the mutation order Aashnandan Singh filed Mutation Appeal No.1 of 90 – 91 in the Court of D.C., Latehar which was dismissed on 03.09.1991.
7. The plaintiff no.1 constructed two shops in Plot No.1350 and extended on portion of Plot No.1349. It is averred that during his brief absence defendants (1st Set) forcibly took possession of the shop rooms. On objection being raised by plaintiff no.1, it was informed by the defendants that the suit property had been purchased from Aashnandan Singh on 25.08.1982 vide Sale Deed No.1375 of 1982 executed in favour of Sheo Prasad Sao and Sureshwar Prasad for Plot No.1350 area 05 decimals, Sale Deed no. 1374 of the year 1982 was also for 05 decimals land in Plot No.1350 was executed by Aashnandan Singh in favour of Kameshwar Pd. Sao and Ram Belash Sao. It is averred with respect to these sale deeds that it was full of falsehood and no deed of WILL was executed by Deoki Nandan Singh which was never produced or probated. As a matter of fact, Aashnandan Singh, father of respondent nos.6 to 8 and husband of defendant no.5 had instituted suit for partition in the Court of Sub Judge, Latehar with respect to the lands held by Deoki Nandan Singh being S.No.39 of 1989. In the suit, no claim was made by virtue of any WILL.
8. Aashnandan Singh had executed another sale deed for the land of Plot No.1350 in favour of Ishlam Mian and Md. Mozahid and had the land mutated in their name, against which appeal was preferred and mutation cancelled.
9. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the purchasers of the land from
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....
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 burden of proof lies on the person asserting a fact until it is discharged, and no party can travel beyond its pleading.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove transfer of interest and permissive possession, and the limitation on becoming an owner by adverse possession if posses....
Possession under a void gift cannot lead to acquisition of title by adverse 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
