The main legal point established is that in a dispute over a sale deed, the plaintiff must establish a clear and specific identity of the land to prove a better title than the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Praveen Akhauri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant.

2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.07.1999 and the decree following thereupon signed on 10.08.1999, passed in Title Appeal No. 92 of 1993, by the Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissing the said appeal and thereby affirming the judgment dated 12.05.1993, passed in Title Suit No. 162 of 1989, by the learned Additional Munsif, Ranchi.

3. The present second appeal was admitted by order dated 28.02.2001 on the following substantial question of law:-

“(1) Whether defendant by registered sale deed, Ext.-5/a transferred the suit land to the plaintiff, which was beyond the land purchased by him through Ext.-5?”

3. The Title Suit No. 162 of 1989/115 of 1989 was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of the title and recovery of possession of R.S. Plot No. 1341/A-1 under Khata No. 34 in village Hatma, P.S.-Ranchi, described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The prayer was also made for decree for mesne profit pendent lite and future along with cost of the suit.

4. The plaintiff-appellant case before the learned trial court in short is that there was a talk of sale of one katha eleven chhataks and twenty nine sq.feet of and out of R.S. Plot No.1341 on consideration of Rs. 10,000/- between the plaintiff Mithilesh Devi and the defendants Mudrika Sao. The defendant had agreed to sale that land on consideration of Rs.10,000/, together with a kachcha house constructed on the land. As per the agreement the defendant Mudrika Sao executed the sale deed and got it registered for one katha seven chhataks twenty nine sq. feet of land which was marked as sub plot No. 1341A. The consideration amount being Rs.10,000/- was paid to the defendant before the District Sub- Registrar, Ranchi. Thereafter the plaintiff west to demarcate the land purchased by her but the defendant raised an objection that he had sold only 20’-6” of land running from west to east and 51’-3” running from north to south. Then, the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the sale deed and found that the defendant had dishonestly and frequently given a wrong map annexed with the sale deed and committed fraud. The land sold to the plaintiff is 26’-6” from north to south on western side and 23’ running from north to south on eastern side whereas in the map annexed with the sale deed he had shown 51’-3” of land from north to south towards east and west. The plaintiff has purchased one katha seven chhataks and twenty nine sq.feet of land and she is entitled to get the possession of the land forty feet from west to east towards north forty three feet from west to east towards south twenty six feet seven chhataks from north to south towards west and 26’-7” from north to south towards east. The plaintiff sent a registered notice to the defendant to execute the deed of rectification, but he refused to receive the registered notice Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for the decree for the declaration of title over the suit land detailed in schedule-A of the plaint and for the delivery of her khas possession over the suit land and also the mesne profit pendente lite and future and also cost of the suit.

5. The case of the defendant-respondent is that the defendant has contended in his written statement that the defendant had never agreed to sell one katha seven chhataks twenty nine sq.feet of land to the plaintiff on consideration of Rs.10,000/- only. The defendant never knew the plaintiff and he had no talk or negotiation for the sale of land. The defendant knew and is acquainted with Madan Singh who is a news paper hawker from whom the defendant used to borrow money from time to time. Madan Singh came to the defendant with his relation Binod Singh in the month of March, 1989 The defendant had asked for a loan of Rs.20,000/- from him bus