Dhaniram Sahu Vs Smt. Meenadevi

This appeal is filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment passed by II^nd Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) dated 03.03.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 05-A of 2015 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was affirmed.

¶18

A Civil suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that survey No. 3715/3, ad-measuring 0.17 acres situated at Village Kirit, Revenue Circle and Tahsil Nawagarh, District – Janjgir Champa was never sold by Late Gaisbai through a

¶19

2

¶20

registered sale-deed dated 03.05.2007 and sale-deed was executed with regard to survey No. 556, ad-measuring 0.11, and therefore, the sale-deed is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. A written statement was filed by defendant No. 1/Smt. Meenadevi, who had purchased the suit property through the registered sale-deed, stated that the plaintiff is not a biological son of Late Gaisbai. She further pleaded that on 03.05.2007, a sale-deed was executed by Late Gaisbai in consideration of Rs. 17,000/- in presence of two witnesses, namely, Atmaram and Prahalad. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that there was no fraud in the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree of declaration of title, and possession, and he is also not entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction, and thus, the Civil suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before the learned First Appellate Court, and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 03.03.2015.

¶21

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the issue of the biological son or adopted son of Late Gaisbai is not relevant in the present suit. He further submitted that the mother of the plaintiff never intended to sell plot bearing survey No. 3715/3, ad-measuring 0.17 acres, and by playing fraud, instead of survey No. 556, ad-measuring 0.11 acres, the above-stated survey number was entered in the sale deed. He also submitted that the attesting witnesses of the sale deed have also not supported the due execution of the sale-deed. It is further contended that both the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside.

¶22

On the other hand, Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. She submitted that first of all the plaintiff has to

¶23

3

¶24

establish his right over the suit property; if the plaintiff is not a biological son of Late Gais Bai, in such a condition, he could not claim right over the suit property. She further submitted that a registered sale deed was executed by late Gaisbai in favour of defendant No. 1 pertaining to survey No. 3715/3, ad-measuring 0.17 acre, and it was signed by two attesting witnesses. She also submitted that during the lifetime of Late Gaisbai, no objection was raised, and after her death, this suit was filed; therefore, the learned Courts below rightly dismissed the claim of the plaintiff/appellant.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the registered sale-deed was executed by Late Gaisbai pertaining to survey No. 3715/3, ad-measuring 0.17 acre in consideration of Rs. 17,000/- on 03.05.2007 in the presence of two attesting witnesses, namely, Atma Ram (PW/2) and Prahalad. A sale deed is a statutory document, and it conveys rights in favour of a purchaser. To prove fraud, the plaintiff ought to have adduced clinching evidence.

¶27

The attesting witness Atma Ram (PW/2) in cross-examination stated that the revenue records for the execution of the sale deed were obtained by Late Gaisbai herself. He has further admitted the fact that on the instance of Gaisbai, he had put his signature on the sale deed as an attesting witness, and thus, he proved the due execution of the sale-deed.

¶28

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines “Sale” and according to this section “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid or part-promised. Thus, the execution of the saledeed gives the right in favour of the purchaser and the execution of the sale-deed can be questioned by its seller by proving fraud etc. strictly in accordance with the law.

¶29

4

¶30

In the present case, the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the suit property; he failed to establish any fraud played during the execution of the alleged sale deed and there is a statutory presumption of the valid sale in favour of defendant No. 1. Further, there is a concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below with regard to the execution of the sale-deed, therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present Second Appeal. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶31

10. A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

$iddhant

Dhaniram Sahu v. Smt. Meenadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaniram Sahu v. Smt. Meenadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Sidar (Died and Deleted) Though Lrs. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jayant Kumar Singh Vs The Principal, Sainik School Ambikapur

Anand Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

South Estern Coal Field Limited Vs Smt. Reeta

Saurabh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.