The court upheld the principle that prior judgments declaring deeds void are binding, affirming the plaintiff's title against claims of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 9^th August, 2024 and decree prepared on 20^th August, 2024 and decree signed on 23.08.2024 whereby the Civil Appeal No.08 of 2022 has been dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa confirming the judgment dated 30^th June, 2022 and decree prepared on 30.06.2022 and signed on 05.07.2022 by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-II, Garhwa, passed in Title Suit No.43 of 2008.

3. Title Suit No.43 of 2008 was instituted by one Maheshwar Mahto/plaintiff for declaration of indefeasible right, title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction against the defendants and cost is also prayed which was decided in favour of the plaintiff by judgment dated 30^th June, 2022 when the decree was prepared and aggrieved to that the appellants/defendants has preferred the Civil Appeal No.08 of 2022 which was decided by judgment dated 09.08.2022 and by the said judgment the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed.

4. Mr. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that learned both the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the entire area of Khata No.54 which is the subject matter of Title Suit No.11 of 1991 was not claimed and only the share of land has been claimed and in view of that, that is the substantial question of law and this second appeal may kindly be admitted.

5. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents stating therein that Mathura Mahto S/o Sukhdeo Mahto of village- Sarkoni, P.S Majhiaon, Distt Garhwa had his share of ancestral land in village- Sarkoni and Bhilama, P S. Majhiaon, Distt – Garhwa. Mathura Mahto had no son and he had only four daughters Jirwa Devi, Premini Devi, Bimala Devi and Kamla Devi, who are married. Sheo Ratiya Devi was mother of Mathura Mahto, who was alive till the year 1988. It is further averred that in 1986, 1987 and 1988 several persons conspired with Bimala Devi and Sheo Ratiya Devi to grab the land of Mathura Mahto and brought the sale deeds and deed of gift in existence purported to be executed by Mathura Mahto, and Sheo Ratiya Devi and subsequently to several others which have been mentioned in detailed in Schedule ’A. The deed of gift by Sheo Ratiya Devi and subsequently sale deeds to transfer the land to others were void ab-initio and similarly, the sale deed fraudulently obtained from Mathura Mahto was also void ab-initio. Subsequent deeds of transfer of such land by said transferees Sheo ratiya Devi and Mathura Mahto were also void which do not affect the convey of the land of Mathura Mahto. Mathura Mahto firstly cancelled the deeds alleged to be executed by him and thereafter, instituted the T.S. No. 10/1991 titled as Mathura Mahto Vrs. Udai Mahto & others and another T.S. No 11/1991 titled as Mathura Mahto Vrs. Saguni Devi & 18 others. Both the suits were for the declaration of deeds mentioned in Schedule ’A’ as void, illegal and without effect. It is further averred that Sale Deed No. 5745/1990 of Principal defendant no.1 the wife of Principal defendant no.2, was the subject of TS. 11/1991 which is relevant for the purpose of this suit. The land of Sale Deed No. 5745/1990 alleged to be executed by Bimala Devi in favour of Principal defendant no. 1. Indramani Devi contains the land 9‰ decimals in plot no. 31 and 10‰ decimals in plot no 32 under Khata no. 54 of village-Sarkoni PS Majhiaon, Distt. Garhwa, which is the subject matter of the suit Sale Deed no. 5745 of 1990 did not convey the right, title, interest and possession to the principal defendants as the sale deed of the suit land was not given effect for any purpose and for any point of time. Mathura Mahto remained in right, title, interest and possession of the suit land along with his other land, regularly and continuously for his all purposes. After hearing of T.S. No. 11 of 1991 it has