Subhash Samvatsar and Mrs. Indrani Dutta, JJ.
Ram Babu Vaishya (d) through LRs v. Scindia Kanya Vidyalaya and another
First Appeal No.15 of 2006 (Gwalior) : against the judgment and
decree of I Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge,
Gwalior, passed in Civil Suit No. 22-A of 2003; Decided on 17.11.2008.
Said reliefs are claimed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.3 State of Madhya Pradesh which has not filed any separate suit or counter-claim, hence, in the absence of any suit on behalf of defendant State, decree in favour of defendants State of Madhya Pradesh declaring the land delineated in green lines cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Similarly, no decree can be passed in favour of defendant No.3 State of Madhya Pradesh for taking possession of the land from defendants No.1 and 2 as defendant No.3 is not the plaintiff in the suit.
It is a well settled principle of law that decree in civil suit can be passed only in favour of plaintiff who has approached the Court by filing suit. In the present case, defendant State of Madhya Pradesh had neither filed civil suit nor any counter-claim. Hence, that part of the impugned decree is totally without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and as such, the impugned decree in respect of the land shown in green ink in the plaint map deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. [Paras 12 & 14
(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.1 -- Act was made applicable since 1.1.1953 vide notification No. 285-VI issued by Madhya Bharat Government -- gift-deed executed on 13.4.1959 -- is governed by the provisions of the Act. [Paras 21 & 22
(3) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss.122 and 123 -- Will and gift -- consideration in these transfers is not necessary -- legislature has put proof of these documents in more strict manner. [Para 23
(4) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss.123 and 3 -- gift-deed -- should be attested by two witnesses as provided under S.3 -- Registrar cannot dispense with requirement of two witnesses provided under S.123. AIR 1969 SC 1147 followed. [Paras 25 & 27
(5) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.123 -- gift-deed attestation by two witnesses -- requirement is mandatory -- in absence of this requirement document does not convey any title in donee. AIR 1975 Pat. 140, AIR 1932 All. 527 and AIR 1985 All. 160 relied on. [Paras 30 & 31
(6) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.123 -- plaintiff seeking decree of declaration of title on the basis of gift-deed -- will have to prove that gift-deed is valid -- else no decree can be given to him. (1970)3 SCC 802, AIR 1951 SC 469 and AIR 1997 H.P. 48 distinguished. [Para 36
(7) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S.38 -- plaintiff not in settled possession -- no decree of perpetual injunction can be granted in his favour. AIR 1968 SC 1167 and 2004(II) MPWN 25 (SC) distinguished. [Paras 37, 38 & 42
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.90 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.123 -- presumption under S.90 -- is of signature on a document which is 30 years old -- it does not dispense with requirement of attestation by two witnesses of gift-deed prescribed under S.123 of TP Act.. [Para 44
¼1½ flfoy Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 33 && flfoy okn esa oknh ds i{k esa fMdzzh ikfjr dh tk ldrh gS && Áfroknh ftlus dksbZ okn vFkok izfrnkok Qkby ugha fd;k gS && mlds i{k esa dksbZ fMdzh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA
mDr vuqrks"kksa dk nkok oknh }kjk] Áfroknh dz- 3 e/; Áns‘k jkT; ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gS ftlus dksbZ i`Fkd~ okn vFkok Áfrnkok ugha fd;k gS] blfy,] Áfroknh jkT; dh vksj ls fdlh okn ds vHkko esa gjh js[kk esa js[kkafdr Hkwfe oknh e/; Áns‘k jkT; ds i{k esa ?kks"k.kk dh fMdzh oknh ds i{k esa Ánku ugha dh tk ldrhA mlh Hkk¡fr Áfroknhx.k dz-1 rFkk 2 ls Hkwfe dk dCtk ÁkIr djus dh fMdzh Áfroknh dz- 3 e/; Áns‘k jkT; ds i{k esa Ánku ugha dh tk ldrhA
fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS flfoy okn esa fMdzh dsoy oknh ds i{k esa ikfjr dh tk ldrh gS tks okn Qkby dj ds U;k;ky; igq¡pk gSA ÁLrqr ekeys esa Áfroknh e/; Áns‘k jkT; us u rks flfoy okn vkSj u dksbZ Áfrnkok gh Qkby fd;k gSA blfy, vk{ksfir fMdzh dk og Hkkx iw.kZr% vf/kdkfjrk jfgr gS vkSj fof/k dh n`f"V ls dk;e ugha j[kk tk ldrk vkSj bl Hkk¡fr okn ds u{ks esa gjh L;kgh ls nf‘kZr Hkwfe ds ckjs esa vk{ksfir fMdzh vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj ,rn~ }kjk vikLr dh tkrh gSA
¼iSjk 12 ,oa 14
¼2½ laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 1 && e/; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk dz-285&Ng }kjk vf/kfu;e 1-1-1953 ls ykxw fd;k x;k Fkk && 13-4-1959 ds fu"iknu nkui= && vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa }kjk ‘kkflr gSA ¼iSjk 21 ,oa 22
¼3½ laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 122 rFkk 123 && ^^foy** rFkk ^^nku** && bu varj.kksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gS && fo/kkf;dk us bu nLrkostksa dk lcwr vfrfu;efuBk ls fn;k gSA ¼iSjk 23
¼4½ laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 123 rFkk 3 && ^^nkui=** && /kkjk 3 esa ;Fkk fofgr nks lkf{k;ksa }kjk vuqÁekf.kr gksuk pkfg, && /kkjk 123 esa fofgr nks lkf{k;ksa dh vis{kk esa jftLVªkj U;k;ky;ksa }kjk NwV ugha nh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 1147 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 27
¼5½ laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 123 && ^^nkui=** && nks lkf{k;ksa }kjk vuqÁek.ku && vis{kk vkKkid gS && bl vis{kk ds vHkko esa nLrkost }kjk nkux`ghrk dks dksbZ gd ÁkIr ugha gksrkA , vkb vkj 1975 iVuk 140] , vkb vkj 1932 byk- 527 rFkk , vkb vkj 1985 byk- 160 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 30 ,oa 34
¼6½ laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 123 && oknh }kjk nkui= ds vk/kkj ij gd dh ?kks"k.kk dh fMdzh dh bZIlk && nkui= fof/kekU; lkfcr djuk gksxk && vU;Fkk mldks dksbZ fMdzh Ánku ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼1970½3 ,l lh lh 802] , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 469 rFkk , vkb vkj 1997 fg-Á- 48 ÁHksfnrA ¼iSjk 36
¼7½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 38 && oknh LFkkfir dCts esa ugha && mlds i{k esa ‘kk‘or vkns‘k dh fMdzh Ánku ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1968 ,l lh 1167 rFkk 2004¼2½ e-Á- ohDyh uksV~l 25 ¼mPpre U;k-½ ÁHksfnrA ¼iSjk 37] 38 ,oa 42
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 90 && laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 123 && /kkjk 90 ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk && ml nLrkost dh gS ftl ij 30 o"kZ iqjkus gLrk{kj gSa && blesa laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 123 ds v/khu fofgr nkui= ij nks lkf{k;ksa ds vuqÁek.ku dh vis{kk dh NwV ugha nh xbZ gSA ¼iSjk 44
***********************************************
Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This first appeal is filed by defendants No.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2005 delivered by Special Judge (Atrocities) and First Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.22-A/03 by which the learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by plaintiff respondent No.1 Scindiya Kanya Vidyalaya Society for declaration of title and injunction.
2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff Scindiya Kanya Vidyalaya society is a society registered under the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Societies Act, 1950 having its registration at No.306/56 dated 1.8.1956 having its registered office at Motimahal Road, Gwalior. Said society is imparting education to the students upto 12th standard and nearly 750 students are studying in the said institution.
3. Present suit is filed by one Shrimati Suniti Sharma on behalf of the said society, being Secretary to the society and the Principal of the said school. A resolution authorising Shrimati Suniti Sharma to file suit was passed by the governing body of the society on 6.3.2002.
4. As per the plaint allegations, land admeasuring 9229 square "Gaj" (one Gaj approximately 33 inches), belongs to the plaintiff society, out of which 2045 square Gaj of the land is under dispute in the case in hand which is delineated in red ink in the map attached to the plaint. Land delineated in green ink on in the plaint map on the northern side of the land in dispute belongs to the State.
5. According to the plaint allegation, the then ruler Jiwajirao Madhavrao Scindia executed a gift-deed dated 30th of April, 1959 in favour of the plaintiff society of the land in dispute and the plaintiff society is in possession of the aforesaid land. The land is also recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records.
6. It is alleged that before execution of the gift-deed, meter gauze and narrow gauze railway lines were passing through the said land and a marble factory was situated there which was run by the then Gwalior State. Big rocks of marbles used to be brought to the factory from Shivpuri through railway and used to be unloaded there. Weight of those rocks was so heavy, that they could not be either moved or lifted. It is alleged that the plaintiff society used to look after and take care of those rocks and those rocks are still lying on the spot which shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute.
7. It is alleged that the land shown in green colour in the map attached to the plaint is a Government land which was the property of the then Commerce Department of the Gwalior State and recorded in the name of Escher factory. Said land was taken on lease by M/s. Crompton Mumbai Limited from the then Gwalior State on rent of Rs.68 per annum which had constructed a show room there. Subsequently, due to some reasons, M/s. Crompton Mumbai Limited executed registered sale-deed of the show room on 22.7.1921 in favour of one Lala Ramjidas Vaishya, father of defendant No.1. It is mentioned in the aforesaid sale-deed that only the building of the show room was sold and the land on which the show room is built was not transferred and it was agreed that lease of the land on which the building of the show room situate was to be taken by Ramjidas from the State.
8. In para 8 of the plaint, it is further averred that the defendants in collusion with the Government officials got their names mutated in the revenue records. It is further alleged that Crompton Mumbai Company had given the show room on rent to one Lala Kashinath Vaishya, uncle of the defendants c/o Pandit Shivnarayan Sharma, on the rent of Rs.200/- per month. After the death of Pandit Shivnarayan Sharma, said show room continued in possession of his heirs. Defendant No.1 had filed civil suit against them on 21.1.1969 which was numbered as Civil Suit No.2-A/69. Said suit was decreed on 15.7.1996 an
7. Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay = [AIR 1951 SC 469]
1. Abdul Jabbar v. Venkata Sastri = [AIR 1969 SC 1147]
8. Smt. Bhanumati Chauhan v. Chetan Singh and others = [AIR 1997 HP 48]
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.