Dau Lal Vs Pooran Das

--------------------------------------------	----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant	: Shri Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, PL
For Respondents- 1 to 6	: Shri Naseemuddin Ansari, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

13.11.2025

¶22

1. This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 (Annexure A1), passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Balodabazar, in Civil Suit No.10A/2005, by which, the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

¶23

Fa 194 of 2006

¶24

2

¶25

2. The plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit for vacant possession of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A, and Schedule-B annexed with the plaint, and also for permanent injunction. The plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint that he has purchased the suit house situated at Khasra-974, situated at village Simga, Ward-10, admeasuring 384 Sq.ft (12 X 32) through registered sale deed dated 10.05.2000 for total consideration of Rs.30,000/-; another suit house was purchased through registered sale deed dated 06.08.1998 from defendant Puran Lal for consideration of Rs.9,000/-, which was admeasuring 168 Sq.ft (14 X 12), also situated at village Simga, Ward-10. Plaintiff further pleaded that he purchased another house from Parsadu on 11.01.1999 admeasuring 368.11 Sq.ft, and another house purchased from the defendantsKhediyabai, Puran Das, Prem Bai, Meena Bai, and Prem Lal on 10.05.2000, situated at village Simga, ward-10, admeasuring 0.004 Hectare of Khasra No.975/2, and came into possession thereof. He further pleaded that on 08.05.2003, when the plaintiff had gone to village Avreli on duty, at that time, defendants have forcefully encroached the suit property of the plaintiff, and threw his household articles from his house. On 09.05.2003, when the plaintiff returned back, he came to know about the encroachment of the defendants in his property, and then lodged a Police Report. However, Police have also not taken any action against the defendants. Plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendants to handover possession over the suit property, but the defendants have denied to hand over possession, and claimed title over the property. Then he filed the Civil Suit.

¶26

3. Defendants 1 to 6 have filed their written statement jointly, and denied the plaint averments. They pleaded that they never sold the suit property to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. The

¶27

Fa 194 of 2006

¶28

3

¶29

defendants have executed an agreement to sell their one decimal land to the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- but the plaintiff has not paid the sale consideration, and therefore, possession was also not delivered to him. When the defendants had gone to registration office with respect to registration of the agreement, plaintiff has got their signature over various papers, due to their illiteracy. Plaintiff was not the title or possession holder of the property. The suit is not properly valued, and no proper court fees has been paid. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

4. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, learned trail Court has framed the following issues:

¶31

okniz’u	fu"d"kZ
1&D;k oknh us flexk ds okMZ uacj 10 esa fLFkr [kkljk uacj 0974 ij fLFkr edku12x32=384 oxZ QhV izfroknhx.k ls 30]000@&: esa fn0 10&5&2000 ds iathd`r fodz; i= ds ek/;e ls dz; dj fy;kgS \|dz; fd;k
2- D;k oknh us izfroknh iwjuyky ls fn0 6&8&1998 dks izpfyr vkcknh esa fLFkr Hkwfe vkoklh; 14x12=168 oxZQhV Hkwfe ij VwVk QwVk edku iqjkuk dks iathd`r fodz; ys[k }kjk dz; dj fy;k gS <br>	dz; fd;k
3- D;k oknh us xzke flexk okMZ ua-&10 esa fLFkr [k0u0 975@2dk VqdMk jdck 0-004 edku o [kkyh txg dks izfroknh x.k ls nl gtkj :i;s esa [kjhn fy;k gS <br>	dz; fd;k
4- D;k cSukek fnukad6&8&98 rFkk nks cSukek fnukad10&5&2000 QthZ ,oa dwV jfpr gS <br>	izekf.kr ugha

¶32

Fa 194 of 2006

¶33

4

¶34

|5- D;k oknHkwfe edku ij oknh dkfct
gS |
ugha| |---|---| |6- D;k oknh vuqlwph v ,oa c esa
mYysf[kr Hkwfe dk fjDr
vf/kiR; ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS |ugha| |7-& D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ds fo:)
fdlh izdkj dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikus
dk vf/kdkjh gS |ugha| |8& lgk;rk ,oa O;; |vkf/kiR; izkfIr nkok
vLohdkj fujLr fd;k x;kA|

¶35

5. In support of the claim, plaintiff has examined PW1-GL Netam, PW2Pramod Ram Ghosle, PW3- Daulal (Plaintiff), PW4-Dilip Kumar, and relied upon the documents Ex.P1, to Ex.P3, which are copies of the sale deed, Ex.P4-Kisht Bandi, and Ex.P5- Khasra Panchshala.

¶36

6. Defendants have not led any evidence.

¶37

7. After appreciation of oral, as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, learned trial Court has found that there are nonjoinder of the necessary parties in the suit, as the plaintiff has not made the persons from whom he purchased the suit property, and in nature of the suit, they are the necessary parties, to the suit. Further, the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property is not found proved, and he has not claimed the relief of declaration of title. He also has not properly valued his suit, and has not paid the proper court fees. Therefore, the suit has been dismissed, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶38

Fa 194 of 2006

¶39

5

¶40

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that while deciding the issues-1, 2, and 3, learned trial Court has held that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendants, and the sale deed was found to be genuine. However, contrary to the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, learned trial court has erroneously held that the plaintiff has no possession over the suit property. It is embodied in the recital of the sale deed itself, and possession was handed over to the purchaser, and the defendant has failed to prove their possession over the suit property, further, no issue has been framed with respect to nonjoinder of the necessary parties, but has held that the suit of the plaintiff suffered from nonjoinder of necessary parties. He would also submit that as per provisions of Order1, Rule9 of the CPC, the suit cannot be dismissed merely of nonjoinder of the parties. Further, no issue has been framed with respect to valuation of suit, and payment of proper court fees, yet, learned trial court has considered that the suit is under valued, and no proper court fees has been paid. Further, learned trial Court has erred in holding that since the plaintiff has not claimed any relief for declaration of title, the suit is not maintainable. He would also submit that when the learned trial court has found that plaintiff has purchased the suit property through a sale deed Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, there is no requirement to claim declaration of title over the suit property, and only the suit for possession and permanent injunction is maintainable.

¶41

9. In support of his claim, he relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nair Service Society Limited Vs KC Alexander and others , AIR 1968 SC 1165, Ajay Dabra Vs Pyare Ram and others {SLP(C)No.15848 of 2019}, decided on 31.01.2023, and Shri

¶42

Fa 194 of 2006

¶43

6

¶44

Durgappa, since dead by LRs Vs Nagamma Since dead by LRs and others , ILR 2017 KAR 4254.

¶45

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned judgment, and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the parties, and passed the judgment. Even if no issues have been framed with respect to nonjoinder of necessary parties, and valuation of the suit, it does not affect the ultimate outcome of the proceeding as the parties were very well known about their case, and produced evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment, and decree do not suffer from any perversity, or illegality.

¶46

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the trial court. The consideration in the present appeal would be whether the plaintiff has proved his case by leading sufficient evidence with respect to his claim. The plaintiff, Daulal, PW3 has stated in his evidence that he purchased the house of 384 Sq.ft situated at ward No.10, Simga, through registered sale deed dated 10.05.2000 from the defendants, and came into possession of the same.

¶47

12. Another house he purchased from defendant- Puran Lal through registered sale deed dated 06.08.1988 with respect to the house of 168 Sq.ft, which was also situated at Tihupara. Another house of 368.11 Sq.ft situated at village Simga from Parsadu, through registered sale deed dated 11.10.1999 Another house situated over 0.004 hectare was purchased through registered sale deed dated 10.05.2000 from the defendants, and entered into an agreement on 10.05.2000 to purchase 1925 Sq.ft of open land situated at village-Simga, Ward-10, and after execution of agreement possession was

¶48

Fa 194 of 2006

¶49

7

¶50

also handed over to him. Likewise, he purchased land admeasuring 25 X 35 ft from Parsadu on 01.09.1999. On 08.05.2003, when he had gone to his duty, the defendants have possessed his house, and thrown his household articles. It is on 09.05.2003, he made a report to the Police and when the Police did nothing, he filed the civil suit.

¶51

13. In cross-examination, he stated that he has not made all the vendors as party defendants, from whom he purchased the property but he made the party defendants those persons, who encroached his property. He admitted that he has not in possession of the said suit property. He has not made Punoti bai as party defendant in the suit. Puran Das executed two sale deeds and one agreement. He further admitted that he has not made Parsadu as party defendant in the case because he has never objected. Since Puran Das also encroached the suit property, which was purchased from Parsadu, and therefore, he filed the sale deed through which he purchased the property from Parsadu. He also stated about variance in the value shown in the agreement, as well as market value of the property. He denied that Puran Das had pledged his property with him. He pledged the property of Puran Das in his favour, and subsequently get the sale deed registered.

¶52

14. PW1 GL Netam is the Sub-Registrar, who proved the execution of sale deeds Ex.P1, P2, and P3, by which the plaintiff had purchased the properties from the defendants. These sale deeds are with respect to the house of 168 Sq.ft, 384 Sq.ft and 0.004 Hectares. In cross-examination, he admitted that he could not tell as to whether there was any exchange of consideration between the parties or not. He was not posted there at the time of execution of the said

¶53

Fa 194 of 2006

¶54

8

¶55

sale deed. Since he was not present at the time of registration of the deal, he could not tell as to who was present, and who was not present.

¶56

15. Considering these evidences, learned trial Court has also found that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property of houses 384 Sq.ft, 168 Sq.ft and 0.004 hectares.

¶57

16. So far as issues 5 and 6 are concerned, as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, or whether he is entitled to recover the possession, or not, is concerned, learned trial court has decided these issues against the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff is based on the title and previous possession. He stated that he was dis-possessed on 08.05.2003 by the defendants.

¶58

17. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 provided that a suit may lie by a person who dis-possessed from immovable property, meaning thereby, if the suit is based on the previous possession, the plaintiff may file the suit for recovery of possession within six months from the date of dispossession.

¶59

18. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is necessary to notice here, which reads as under:

¶60

Section 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.—

¶61

(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.

¶62

(2) No suit under this section shall be brought—

¶63

Fa 194 of 2006

¶64

9

¶65

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or

¶66

(b) against the Government.

¶67

(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.

¶68

(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.

¶69

19. From the pleadings made in the plaint, it transpires that plaintiff was dispossessed on 08.05.2003, and on 09.05.2003, he made Police complaint but no action has been taken by the Police, and then, Civil suit has been filed. Though the plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint that cause of action arose in the month of may, 2004, when the defendants started alienating the suit property to other persons but in view of the fact that the plaintiff has dispossessed on 08.05.2003, cause of action was first arose on 08.05.2003, whereas, he filed the Civil Suit on 14.07.2004. To attract the provision of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit for recovery of possession is to be filed within six months of his dispossession. In the present case, no suit was filed within six months. Since the suit was not filed within six months from his dispossession, sub-Section 4 of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act would come into operation, which provides that “nothing in this Section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property as to recover possession thereof”.

¶70

20. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed the suit for declaration of his title. In such circumstances, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 would come into play, which provides that no Court shall make any such declaration where

¶71

Fa 194 of 2006

¶72

10

¶73

the plaintiff, be able to seek any further relief, then, a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

¶74

21. Under the facts, whether the plaintiff is required to claim for declaration of title, or not, this Court again examine the evidence of the parties, as to whether the plaintiff is required to pray relief for declaration of title or not. (From perusal of the sale deed Ex.P1, P2, and P3, it does not appear that the possession was also delivered to him with respect to the subject property.)

¶75

22. Since the defendants have challenged the title of the plaintiff over the suit property in their written statement, that they have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property, then, a serious cloud raised over the title of the plaintiff as to whether he acquired the title over the suit property by virtue of these sale deeds, or not.

¶76

23. Para-3 of the written statement filed by the defendants is necessary to quote here, which is with respect to their denial of title of the plaintiff :

¶77

“(3) ;g fd okni= dh dafMdk dzekad 3 dk ;g dFku fd oknh us fnukad 10&5&2000 dks oknHkwfe esa ls [kljka uEcj 974 ij fLFkr edku tks fd flexk ds okMZ dzekad 10 esa fLFkr gS dk 12 QhV x 10 QhV=

¶78

384 oxZQhV Hkwfe dks izfroknh x.kksa ls 30]000 :i;s esa iathd`r fodz; i= ds ek/;e ls [kjhn dj dkfct gqvk dk dFku vlR; gksus ls badkj gSa rFkk ;g Hkh badkj gS fd fnukad 6&8&1998 dks izfroknh iqjuyky ls fodz; foys[k ds ek/;e ls izpfyr vcknh es a fLFkr vkoklh; Hkwfe 14112=168 oxZQhV dh Hkwfe ftl ij VwVk QwVk edku yxHkx 60 o"kZ iqjkuk gS dks 9000@& :i;s esa [kjhn dj nkf[ky o dkfct gqvk

¶79

Fa 194 of 2006

¶80

11

¶81

rFkk ;g dFku fd ,d vU; Hkwfe ijlkn~ oYn uanw lr0 ds xzke ds flexk esa fLFkr vcknh Hkwfe o edku ftldk dqy {ks=Qy 368-11 QhV gS ftl ij 149-6 QhV ij dPpk feV~Vh dk edku rFkk 218-56 QhV ij [kqyk txg gSa dks fnukad 11&1&1999 dks [kjhn dj nkf[ky o dkfct gqvk dk dFku vlR; gksus ls badkj gS mDr dFku dks oknh Lo;a izekf.kr djsaA okni= dh dafMdk dzekad 3 dk ‘’ks"k dFku vlR; gksus ls badkj gSa ftldk izek.k Hkkj oknh ij gSaA ”

¶82

24. Since a serious cloud was raised on the title of the plaintiff, plaintiff is required to claim for declaration of title as required under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, because his suit does not fall under Section 6 of the Act, 1963. Though the sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are said to have been executed by the defendants, but they denied the same.

¶83

25. In the matter of Anathula Sudhakar Vs P Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others (2008) 4 SCC 594, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-21 of its judgment that:

¶84

“21.To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :

¶85

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's

¶86

Fa 194 of 2006

¶87

12

¶88

lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

¶89

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

¶90

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

¶91

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question

¶92

Fa 194 of 2006

¶93

13

¶94

of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”

¶95

26. Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issues in para 13 of above cited judgment of Anathula Sudhakar (supra), which is relevant in the present case, is being extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶96

“13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.

¶97

13.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

¶98

13.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of

¶99

Fa 194 of 2006

¶100

14

¶101

possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

¶102

13.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.”

¶103

27. Though the learned trial court has found that the plaintiff was never been in possession of the suit property, and when he was not in possession of the suit property, there was no question of dis-possession on 08.05.2003, and has held that the plaintiff was not dispossessed by the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed that cause of action arose in the month of May, 2004, when the defendant started alienating the suit property to other persons, which also affects the title of the plaintiff, and considering that the plaintiff has not claimed for declaration of title, he is being non-suited by the learned trial Court.

¶104

28. So far as the valuation of the suit is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed possession of the suit property which are the residential houses, and he valued his suit as Rs.48,000/- . On what basis the plaintiff has valued the suit has not been disclosed. Learned trial court has considered the value of the document Ex.P1, P2 and P3, which come to Rs.49,000/-, the value put in the document dated 11.01.1999 as Rs.9,000, in the agreement dated 01.02.1999, Rs.6,500 and another agreement, 10.05.2000 as Rs.11,500/-, and all these suit

¶105

Fa 194 of 2006

¶106

15

¶107

properties are the properties shown in Schedule-A and B annexed with the plaint, over which the plaintiff claimed possession, and thus, total valuation put in the deeds come to Rs.76,000/-. However, the plaintiff has valued Rs.59,046/-, which is under valued.

¶108

29. As per Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, for possession of the land, or house, the plaintiff is required to value the suit as per the value of the property, and to pay the Ad valorerum Court Fees, which in the present case, has not been done. Though as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(c) of the CPC, time to correct valuation of suit, and to pay the requisite Court fees should be granted to the plaintiff and if he fails to do so, the plaint may be rejected, but it is not done in the present case..

¶109

30. It is not the case herein that time was granted to the plaintiff to rectify the undervaluation of the suit property, and to pay requisite court fees but the suit of the plaintiff is not dismissed on the ground of undervaluation alone. The suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground that his title is denied by the defendants, and he has not claimed title over the suit property in the suit.

¶110

31. With respect to nonjoinder of necessary party is concerned, when the plaintiff has pleaded that he has not made all the vendors as the party defendants in the suit, because he filed suit only against those persons, who had encroached his property. The contention of the plaintiff is plausible, and therefore, it cannot be said that the is any nonjoinder of the parties. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that on 08.05.2003, his properties have been encroached by the defendants, and he claimed possession over his property,

¶111

Fa 194 of 2006

¶112

16

¶113

therefore, the plaintiff is not required to implead all those persons from whom he purchased the property.

¶114

32. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on the ground that he has not claimed relief of declaration of title over the suit properties, and he could not prove his possession on 08.05.2003 from the suit property, his suit has been dismissed, and since he is not in possession of the suit property, no permanent injunction can be granted in his favour. Although the defendants have not examined themselves in the suit, and they have not produced any evidence, however, considering the burden to prove was upon the plaintiff to prove his case, and when the plaintiff has failed to prove his case, even if the defendants have not been examined, no benefit can be extended to the plaintiff by nonexamination of the defendants.

¶115

33. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff are distinguishable with the facts and consideration of the present case, and no benefit can be extended to the plaintiff by those judgments.

¶116

34. Judgment of Ajay Dabra (supra) relates to the making of deficit court fees in the appellate state also, however, the plaintiff has not made any application in the appeal to make good the deficiency of requisite court fees.

¶117

35. Judgments in cases of Nair Service Society Limited (supra), and Shri Durgappa (supra) are related with the suit falling under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra), it is held that the plaintiff is required to file the suit for declaration of title, no benefit could be extended to the plaintiff by this judgment also.

¶118

Fa 194 of 2006

¶119

17

¶120

36. As fall out of above discussion, this Court does not find any perversity, or illegality in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶121

37. Accordingly, the First Appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.

¶122

38. Parties to bear their own costs, and decree to be drawn accordingly.

¶123

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE