Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Appeal allowed
Vrindavan S/o Mathura and others
Vs.
Jaipratap S/o Mahadev and others
Second Appeal No. 18 of 1990
Decided On: 26.02.2007
mutation - property dispute - Transfer of Property Act, Sections 122 and 123
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit challenging the mutation order in favor of Jaipratap, claiming the disputed land as joint property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court dismissed the suit based on admissions in a previous suit and the alleged gift deed.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the admission in the previous suit was binding on the plaintiffs and that the disputed land fell into the exclusive share of Mathura, who had gifted the land to Jaipratap. The court also held that the mutation in favor of Jaipratap was valid and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
Issues: Admissibility of gift deed, binding nature of admissions in previous suit, and ownership of disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the gift deed was not admissible as it was not registered, and the admission in the previous suit was binding on the plaintiffs. However, the trial court's findings were upheld as the admission was properly explained and the mutation in favor of Jaipratap was found to be invalid.
Final Decision: The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, and the mutation order in favor of Jaipratap was declared null and void, with costs borne by the respondents.
K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. This is plaintiffs appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/1986 dated 21-11-1989, by which the judgment and decree passed by IVth Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 18-A/1981 dated 21-7-1986 was reversed. The Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissed the suit of appellants.
2. This appeal was admitted on 10-7-1990 on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree impugned despite the fact that the judgment debtor Defendant No. 3 Ramkhilawan neither filed any appeal nor made a party to the first appeal?
On 6-3-2002 one more substantial question of law was framed which reads thus:
Could there be any gift of immovable property in favour of Jaypratap Singh (R-l) without execution of a valid gift-deed attested by two witnesses?
3. This matter was heard and decided on 25-6-2002, but the respondents filed an application for recalling of judgment and decree dated 25-6-2002 on the ground that during the pendency of appeal plaintiff Ramavatar died on 12-1-2001, but without impleading the legal representatives of Ramavatar namely Triveni Singh and Chunni Bai a decree was passed. As a decree was passed against a dead person so the order be recalled. This application was registered as M.C.C. No. 1003/2002 and vide order dated 31-1-2003 the judgment and decree dated 25-6- 2002 were recalled. Thereafter the appellants filed an application I.A.No. 598/2003 and M.(C).P. No. 843/2003 which were heard and decided on 2-5-2003 and this Court allowed the application for substitution of legal representatives of Ramavatar and abatement was set aside. Thereafter the matter is heard afresh.
4. After recalling of order dated 25-6-2002 on 31-1-2003 the respondents filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure on 24-4-2003. Along with the aforesaid application the respondents filed photo copy of gift deed dated Miti Jeth Suti Ekadashi Samvat 2036 (year 1979) and an order dated 10-9-1980 in M.J.C. No. 26/1971 by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa deciding an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure Code.
5. The appellants assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on following grounds:
(a) That in case there is no evidence on record showing that the disputed Land Survey Nos. 922 and 924 of village Khadda fell into the share of Mathura.
(b) That the admission made in Civil Suit No. 335-A/1980 was wrongly taken into consideration by the Appellate Court. In fact the aforesaid admission was explained by the appellants. Apart from this the parties in previous suit were not the same so the admission is not binding in the present suit.
(c) That the respondents had not filed any gift deed before the Court below, in absence of any gift deed the Appellate Court erred in holding that Mathura gifted the property in favour of Jaipratap Respondent No. 1. In absence of any registered document in this regard, the aforesaid findings are perverse.
(d) That the application filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure Code, cannot be allowed. There is no explanation for non-filing of aforesaid document before the Courts below. Apart from this the gift deed is on a simple paper, neither registered nor bears any endorsement that the aforesaid gift was accepted by Jaipratap, in absence of which the document neither can be admitted in evidence nor can be relied on.
(e) That another document which is filed is an order dated 10-9-1990 is in respect of proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure Code, which relates to breach of temporary injunction and finding in the aforesaid proceedings will not affect the merits of the present case.
It is submitted that the application under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure Code, may be dismissed and this appeal
AI
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
