Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1675
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Prafulla C.Pant
DESH RAJ
Versus
DHARAM VEER SINGH
Decided On : 08 September 2005
Second Appeal No. 22 of 2003
JAGDISH PRASAD, K.N.JOSHI, Lok Pal Singh, MEERA AGARWAL, Sudhir Chaudhary,
The principle of estoppel, as contained in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was applied by the court to rule in favor of the appellant based on the respondent's binding admission regarding possession.
Headnote:
Admission - Land Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court discussed the admission of the respondent about delivery of possession, the judgment of revenue court, the rights of a person in possession, and the concurrent findings of fact of courts below. The court found that the defendant's admission regarding possession was binding, the plaintiff's title was better than that of the defendant, and the plaintiff's possession over the land was established. The court applied the principle of estoppel and ruled in favor of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenure holder and resident of a village, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent, alleging that the respondent attempted to take forcible possession of a disputed land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's admission regarding possession was binding, the plaintiff's title was better than that of the defendant, and the plaintiff's possession over the land was established. The court applied the principle of estoppel and ruled in favor of the appellant.
Issues: The issues included the admission of the respondent about delivery of possession, the judgment of revenue court, the rights of a person in possession, and the concurrent findings of fact of courts below.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of estoppel and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the respondent's binding admission regarding possession, the plaintiff's better title, and the established possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as by lower appellate court were set aside. The suit filed by plaintiff was decreed as prayed against the defendant, for injunction.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that appellant (plaintiff) is tenure holder and resident of Village Sakainiya, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. According to plaint case, the defendant Dharam Veer Singh, on 02-12-1988 executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff to sell land measuring 05 Bighas in respect of plot No. 188/3, 11 Bighas 10 Biswa in respect of plot No. 193/1 M, 10 Bighas in respect of plot No. 193/2, 09 Bighas in respect of plot No. 193/2 M, and 10 Bighas 3 Biswa in respect of plot No. 193/3 (total land measuring 45 Bighas 13 Biswa) of the aforesaid village. The said agreement was registered before the Sub Registrar, Bazpur. It is pleaded by the plaintiff (appellant) that he is in possession of these plots since then. The dispute re lates to the plot No. 188/3 regarding which it is pleaded that by mistake it was mentioned as plot No. 188/5 in the agreement. It is further pleaded that as soon as the mistake was detected, on 27-06-1989, a rectification endorse ment was got recorded in a stamp pa per, in which the defendant Dharam Veer Singh clarified that it was plot No. 188/3, agreed to be sold, which was by mistake mentioned as 188/5 in the agreement, and possession of said land too has been delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that in plot No. 188/3 his tube well is installed in a small room of 8 feet x 8 feet apart from his 07 Eucalyptus, 50 Sheesham and 2 Babool trees standing thereon. The de fendant, taking advantage of clerical mistake in the agreement, now wants to trespass over the aforesaid land in dis pute, though earlier in a suit No. 53 of 1989 filed by one Ashok against the present plaintiff in respect of disputed land, the defendant Dharam Veer Singh filed an affidavit that he has sold 05 Bigha land of plot No. 188/3. It is also alleged that the Advocate Commis sioner also, on inspection found the possession of the plaintiff over the plot In question. On 02-12-1997 defendant alongwith his relatives made attempt to take forcible possession of the disputed land. In the circumstances the plaintiff instituted the suit for injunction against defendant, restraining him and his fam ily members from taking forcible pos session, or interfering in possession of the plaintiff in respect of land measur ing 05 Bigha of plot No. 188/3.
3. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement wherein execution of agreement of sale in re spect of disputed land is denied. It is also denied that the defendant deliv ered possession of the land of plot No. 188/3 to the plaintiff. It is also not ad mitted to the defendant that he signed rectification on any stamp paper. As to the alleged affidavit filed in suit No. 53 of 1989, it is pleaded by the defendant that he was not a party to said suit. Denying possession of plaintiff over the land in suit, it has been further pleaded that in fact defendant was recorded in revenue records in Class-4 (Varg-4) in respect of plot No. 188/3 and had no right to sell said land. The alleged rec tification deed has been challenged on the ground that the same is not a reg istered document. Alleging that the de fendant had a litigation with father of the plaintiff, earlier in civil suit No. 69 of 1978, an appeal arising thereof was still pending in the High Court at the time of institution of the present suit. Lastly, it is pleaded in the written state ment that the agreement of sale in question is void and the suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
4. Learned trial court, after fram ing the issues, recording the
