Allowed

Kamta Prasad Devangan v. Raghu Nandan

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2014SA/732/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court held that based on the evidence and the lower consideration amount, it was appropriate to decide the transaction was for legal necessity, though the lower appellate Court failed to give findings on the nature of the transaction. The appeal was allowed and the lower appellate judgment set aside.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside. The trial Court is remanded with a direction to pass judgment without any finding relating to the nature of t

Kamta Prasad Devangan Vs Raghu Nandan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

‘
IN H IGH CTQUR OF JUDICARTJE AT JALPURBA
“{EL
Second Appeal No. of 1996
,& L‘w w
/
/' / /
R<br>Appellant : Kamta Prasad Devangan, /
Deferidant S/O Shra. Lakhan Prasad Aged 60 Years,,)
R/O Amoda, Tehsil JenJgir,
Distt. Bilaspur, MIP.
E ~ Versus
'
1' V
Respondent Baghunandan,
Plalntlffs S/O Firtu, aged 37 Years
2. Ramelal S/O Flrtu (now Major)
i i ‘wT’ Aged 27 Years
W‘W'w” x3A7 P
(\ ”(f1 ”.x Laaggx5" vs? Qlstt.Both R/OBilaspurAmoda, Tehs1l(MP). Janjglr,
yawc <br>3:) v) /[W )é Defendant 3&Wmiaistangam
g) gged abgg 5m —R/‘6#Vill—age
”(dW l L—Jenggrr, .f
>
Jmv /‘ “v? ” , P
{ \ —
7kMy. \x i ,
I L UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE 9F CIVIL PROCEDURE<br>

¶2

‘L 7

¶3

q.
M
Me5
g . .
M/
@‘3’
OX
,‘a iVi ,

¶4

‘Narayan Prasad S/o Late Karma Prasad R/o

¶5

‘ Dewangan, aged about 55 years, Distt. —’ Amoda, Tah. Nawagarh,

¶6

Village

¶7

1 Janjgir—Champa^(C.G.) wangan^{S/oLateKamtaPrasad}

¶8

g Tikaram^De aged about 40 years, R/o ‘ Dewangan, Distt. — Amoda, Tah. Nawagarh,

¶9

Village

¶10

i Janjglr—Champa^(co).

¶11

‘Dewangan, D/o Late Kamta Santi Bai ‘30 aged about years, Dewangan, Distt. ‘R/oErasadvillage — Amoda, Tah. Nawagarh, Janj gir—Champa^{(C. G.)}

¶12

s.A. No.732 of¹⁹⁹⁶ Page 1 of 5

¶13

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR_} Second Ap_geal^No.732 9f¹⁹⁹⁶

¶14

Appellant Defendaht

¶15

Kamta Prasad Devangan (dead)

¶16

through his^{legalrepresentatives:}

¶17

I. Narayan^Prasad H. Tikaram‘Dewangan Ill. Santi Bai^Dewangan

¶18

Versus

¶19

Respondents Plaintiffs

¶20

¶21

Raghunandan: 2. Ramelal ‘ 3. Firtu (died,^namedeleted)

¶22

(Second^{AppealunderSection100oftheCPC)}

¶23

M‘s Sharmila^{Shinghai,counselfortheappellants.}

¶24

MrGovind^{Dewangan,counselfortherespondents.}

¶25

(SB: Hon’bie Mr.^{T.P.snarma,J.)} JUDGMENT

¶26

(3—9-2014)

¶27

Present second appeal filed against the judgment & decree dated 8.8}.1996 passed^{bytheAdditionalJudgetotheCourtofDistrictJudge,} Bilaspur at^Janjgirin Civil Appeal^No83-A/84 reversing the judgment & decree^{ofdismissalofsu1tdated31784passedbythe} CiVIl Judge Class i Janjgir In CIVII Suit No 42 A/79 has been admitted for conSIderation^{onthefollowmgsubstantialquestionoflaw-} Whether the finding^{ofthelowerappellateCourtreaching} to the concluSIon^{thatthesaleVldeEx.D-3madebythe} defendant^{No.2tothedefendantNo.1wasnotforlegal} necessity and^{thereforethesamexwasnotbindingupon} the plaintiffs^is justified^ornot?

¶28

As per plaint^allegation of respondents^No1 and 2 they are sons^of* deceased defendant No2 Flrtu The property In dispute Situate at Viljage Amoda, tahsrl Janjgir was purchased by father of Firtu In the hame of Firtu. lt was joint^family property. Respondents No.1 and 2

¶29

S.A. No.732 of¹⁹⁹⁶ Page 2 of 5

¶30

werel coparceners/co-owners of the property. Their father deceased Firtth was in^habitof playing game^{anddefendantNo.2obtainedmoney} fronii the appeilant^for piaying game^{andtransferredtheproperty,which} was without legal^necessityand it is not binding^{uponrespondentsNo.1} and 2. On the basis of aforesaid pleading, suit for possession of the land in dispute^wastiled.

¶31

By filing written^{statement,the} present^{appellanthasspecificallydenied} the adverse^{allegationandhas} pleaded^{thatdeceaseddefendantFirtu} has executed^{saledeedandsamewasforlegalnecessityofthefamily.} He,was not in habit of playing game. After execution of sale deed possession^{wasalsopartedandtheappellantwasinpossessionofthe} land on the basis^ofsaledeed. Deceased^{Firtuhasfiledseparatewrittenstatementandhasdeniedthe} fact that he^was in habit of playing game.^{Hehasspecificallypleaded} that he was indebted,^{thenhemortgagedthe’propertytoRamnathand} for redemption,^{heagainmortgagedthe} property^{todefendantNo.1} i.e. appellant herein and handed over the possession for two years, thereafter^{hewascontinuingin} possession.

¶32

After providing^{opportunityofhearingtothe} parties,^{thetrialCourthas} dismissed the suit and the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment^{&decreepassedbythetrialCourtbyholdingthatdeceased} into contract

¶33

Firtu was having habit of playing game^{andhasentered} with the appellant^{forsuchbadhabit,therefore,thecontractwasnotfor} legal necessity of^thefamily.

¶34

l have heard learned^{counselforthe} parties, perused^{thejudgmentand} decree impugned, judgment^{anddecree’ofthetrialCourtandrecordsof} the Courts^below.

¶35

l \

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that both the Courts below^{haveheldthatdeceasedFirtuhassoldthepropertytothe} appellant. Even as per para 5 of the plaint, deceased Firtu has transferred the property^{totheappellant} i.e. factum^{oftransferi.e.sale} by Firtu has^{notdisputed.Asregardsthe} question^{oflegalnecessity,} in recital of sale deed

¶37

the light of contradictory^{evidenceofthe} parties,

¶38

of¹⁹⁹⁶ Page 3 of 5^w

¶39

S.A. No.732 of¹⁹⁹⁶

¶40

Ex DV3 is safe for placing reliance which shows that for payment of loan and for family he has sold the property The appellant and hrs Witnesses had deposed that deceased Flrtu was in habit of playlng game^and for playlng game^{hehasexecuted} Ex.D/3 m favour^ofthe appellant Deceased Firtu was defendant^{No2andhehasexamined} he has denied the hlmsielf as DW—2 In para 4 of his^{writtenstatement} allegatton of playlng game^and has specmcally pleaded that he was indebted and for payment of debt, he executed the document,^which was not saie, but mortgage^{andasacustom,} execution of mortgage deed was not possible,^{therefore,hehasexecutedmortgageddeed} in the style of sale^deed. lt was also agreed^{thattheappellantwillcultivate} rwill the Ia‘nd for two years and thereafter he return the same to deceased Firtu. ln para 4A, he has specifically pleaded that the appellant has cultivated the land in the year 72-73 & 73-74 and thereafter returned the possession to deceased Firtu, father of respondents No.1 and 2, but he has deposed against his pleading relating to playing^of gameⁱⁿ para^{4ofhisdeposition,} in which he has deposed that after^two years^{thelandwascultivatedbyhisfather.This} shows that deceased^{Firtuwasdeviatedfromhis} pleading,^whichisnot ’of and evidence the appellant appears to be more permissible reasonable and probable^to prove^{thatdeceasedFirtuhassoldtheland} to the appellant^{andsamewasforlegalnecessityofthefamily.} 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents^opposedthe appeal and argued^{thatinorderto} prove^{thefactumoflegalnecessity,} the appellant^{wasunderobligationto} prove^{thefactthatwhatenquiry} he has made to satisfy himself that deceased Firtu was in need of money for benefit of^{hisfamilyespeciallywhatwastheappropriatecost} of the property especially in the light of Ex.D/1 sale deed dated 26.6.1952, in which cost of the property has been mentioned as W Rs.2848/— and cost of the property mentioned in Ex.D/3 dated 27.6.1972^i.e. after²⁰ years^ofthe purchase^{isonlyRs.2500/-.} 9. Execution of sale deed^{Ex.D/3isnotindispute.} Initially handing over^of is also not in dispute. Respondent^No.1 i.e. plaintiff^No.1 possession 1 \ has examined himself as (PW-1)^{andotherwitnessesBisahu} (PW-2), I Brijlal (PW-3) and^Nanki (PW-4). Plaintiff Raghunandan (PW-1),^sonof

¶41

¶42

¶43

S.A. No.732 of 1996 Page 4 of 5

¶44

Firtu has not deposed anything^{toshowthathisfatherwas} In habit of playlng game Inter aha as per para 3^{ofhiseVIdence} his father was taking care of his^{faml|y,hewasalsoworkingwrth} his father Brsahu (PW^2)’ Brijlal (PW-3) and Nanki (PW-4) have also not deposed anything relatlng to bad habit of Firtu In their eVIdence Bad habit of 1 and 2 but they deceased Firtu was the pleadmg^{ofrespondentsNo} I have not adduced any^eVldenceto prove^{theaforesaidfactumofbad} hab‘it of Firtu. Defendant/appellant^{KamtaPrasadhasalsonotdeposed} anything to show^{thatFirtuwasinbadhabitof} playing game.^Defendant Firtu has examined^himself. ln para 2, he has^{specificaiiydeposedthat} he^twas in habit of playing game and^{furtherdeposedthatfor} playing game^{hehasexecutedthedocumentandhehastakenIoan,but} it was his good luck that by cross—examining him on behalf of his sons/plaintiffs,^whohas pleaded^thathewas in habit of playing game, opportunity to explain^{thetransactionwas} given^tohim in para 7 of his cross—examination, in which he has deposed^{thathehastakenloanof} Rs.2500/— from the appellant,^{saledeedwasexecutedand} possession was handed over for two years for payment of such loan i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 have not asked^any question relating to such playing^of game.^{Para2ofhisevidence‘i‘scontradictorytopara4ofhis} pleading,^{whichfalsifieshisevidencethatforplayinggamehehassold} or mortgaged the property. Undisputedly, as per Ex.D/1: property purchased on 26.6.1952 in the name of Firtu was after payment of consideration of^{Rs.2848l—andafter2O} years^{thecostofthelandwas} assessed in Ex.D/3 as^Rs.2500/-.

¶45

It is the matter of common^{experiencethatcostofimmovable} property will not decrease and will substantially increase. The appellant was under obligation to explain what enquiry he has‘ made about the appropriate consideration^{orwhatwasthecostofthelandatthetimeof} such transaction,^{buthehasnotexplainedthesame,whichcastdoubt} upon the legality of transaction^ofsale.

¶46

Defendant No.2 Firtu was^the person^{whohasexecutedthedocument} Ex.D/3. As per his pleading, it was mortgaged and possession^was handed over to the appellant^i.e.nottothe plaintiffs.^The plaintiffs^have

¶47

7 ,,W§.'mWym & V

¶48

t 40/ x

¶49

s.A. No.732^of1996 Page 5^of5

¶50

his father Firtu. filed t1he suit for possession^{againsttheappellantand} Firtu^éiiedduring pendency^{ofthisappeal.}

¶51

of respondents^N01 and 2 they are not in

¶52

. As per speCIfic pleading posse‘ssron^{oftheproperty,whichrevealsthatonthebasrsofdocument} Even^otherwrse

¶53

Ex D/3^{theappellantwasinpossessionoftheproperty} possessron^{washandedovertothe}

¶54

as per pleading^{ofdeceasedFirtu} the appellant

¶55

but as per para^4ofthe plaint

¶56

appellant^fortwo years forcefully^{obtainedthepossessronfromrespondentsNo1and2whom} which^{showsthattheappellantis}

¶57

possessron^{wasneverhandedover} after execution of the document Ex D/3

¶58

in continuous possessmn and

¶59

EVideaoe adduced on behalf of the parties especrally pleading the transaction^{wasforlegalnecessrty,but}

¶60

eVidence^{ofdeceasedFirtu} in comparison^toExD/1 and speCIfic

¶61

i n the light^{oflowconsrderation} Firtu^{Withoutanycontrapleadingorevrdence} it

¶62

pleading^ofdeceased would not be^appropriate to give^{findingthatwhatwasthenature} of Firtu^andhanding

¶63

transaction but in^the light^of pleading^ofdeceased at least^{sUitSimliCItorfor}

¶64

over^the posseSSion^{ofFirtutotheappellant} of the property by respondents No1 and 2 is not

¶65

possession mntainable.ai

¶66

. Fo r the foregogm reason s substanialt q uestion of law^formulated for deonCIsI of tshi appeal i s deCdedI that transaconti was for legal neesy,csit^butno fdiinng^{aboutthenatureoftrnsacon} ati i s given

¶67

. O n the bas is of aforesaid finding, the appeal deserves to be^and is by the lower

¶68

hereby allowed Judgment^& decree impugned passed er SId J udgment^{&decreepassedby}

¶69

aellatepp^{Courtarehebysetaeand} the trali Court to the extent of dismissal of sm t Wihoutt any fidinng relating^{tonatureoftransactionareherebymntned.} aiai

¶70

. Partise^{shallbearthir} e^owncost.

¶71

. Advocate^fees, if certified,^{shallbeasperschedule.}

¶72

s ' ##VH“. . Decree^{bedrawnupaccordingly.} ”KW^)JW SdlT.I’.^Sharma

Kamta Prasad Devangan v. Raghu Nandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamta Prasad Devangan v. Raghu Nandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaynandan Singh and Ors. Vs Shailendra Singh and Ors.

Kadhu Vs Smt. Indira Kunwar and Ors.

Dukhu Ram Gupta Vs Shrimati Abhiman Bai and Others

Sonmati and Ors. Vs Jhitru and Ors.

Panchram Vs Kaliram and Ors.

Hariram Vs Daya Shankar and Ors.