Itwara Bai Vs Lekhram

1 - Lekhram S/o Ramphal Kaushik, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tilai, Tehsil Akaltara, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Plaintiff.

¶12

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.( Defendant No.2 )

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri NK Chatterjee, Advocate. For State Shri TS Sahu, PL.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

06.01.2025

¶18

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree

¶19

2

¶20

dated 28.07.2017 passed by District Judge, Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa in Civil Appeal No.69A/2016 reversing judgment and decree dated 27.06.2016 passed by Civil Judge Class 1, Akaltara District Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No.46A/2011 wherein the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was dismissed. While allowing the appeal, decree was granted in favour of plaintiff/Respondent No.1 for the subject land.

¶21

Necessary facts of the case, in brief, are that plaintiff/Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of land bearing Khasra No.159/2 admeasuring area 0.34 acre out of total land 1.01 acre situated at village Gadola, patwari halka No.17, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from defendant No.1/appellant by way of registered sale deed dated 27.12.2008(Ex. P/1) for a sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and obtained possession. After some time, appellant tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the portion of the land sold by her, therefore the present suit has been filed. The learned trial court framed the issues to the effect that whether the plaintiff is title holder of the subject land and is entitled to recover possession of the subject property from Defendant No.1. Plaintiff/respondent No.1(PW-1) in order to prove his case examined himself and Shivkumar(PW-2) one of the attesting witness of the sale deed(Ex.P/1) as also the writer of the sale deed Surendra Rathore(PW-3) and exhibited four documents viz Ex.P/1- original sale deed, Ex.P/2-Demarcation Report, Ex.P/3-B-1, Ex.P/4-Khasra panchshala. The appellant/Defendant No.1 after cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness proceeded ex-parte on 26.04.2016 and the trial Court

¶22

3

¶23

after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the suit, against which plaintiff/respondent No.1 preferred first appeal which was allowed. Hence this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that before the trial Court plaintiff has not proved any clinching evidence in order to demonstrate that Defendant No.1/appellant is the title holder of the subject land, however admittedly the appellant has sold the subject property in favour of plaintiff by way of registered sale deed (Ex.P/1) on 27.12.2008. He would further submit that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case and he cannot take benefit of defendant’s weakness. Learned counsel would further submit that one Bisahu is the owner of the land and appellant is only using the disputed land. Therefore, appellant has no authority to alienate the subject property in favour of the plaintiff, hence, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit which was reversed by the first appellate Court and the said judgment is perverse on the face of record and prays to formulate substantial question of law on such score.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

Admittedly, the appellant/Defendant No.1 has executed the registered sale deed (Ex.P/1) on 27.12.2008 in favour of plaintiff. The appellant now is taking a stand that she is not the title holder of the subject land, as per the doctrine of principle of estoppel which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act is based on equity and good conscience. The object being to prevent fraud and secure justice between the parties by promoting honesty and good faith. Where a person by his words or

¶27

4

¶28

conduct willfully causes another to believe in existence of certain state of things and induces him to act on that belief so as to alter his own previous position, the former is precluded from averring against the latter at different state of things existing at the same time.

¶29

Even otherwise the appellant has been proceeded ex-parte and has not proved the defense taken by her. In the demarcation report(Ex.P/2), it has been categorically reported by Revenue Inspector, Akaltara on 12.06.2010 that the appellant has sold the subject land however she is in possession of some portion of the land. After the alleged sale, name of the purchaser who is plaintiff has already been recorded in the land record vide Ex.P/3. Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the first appellate Court has rightly corrected the said finding by the impugned judgment and there is no perversity in the said finding.

¶30