This second appeal challenged a judgment confirming title and granting permanent injunction in favor of original owners. The High Court held no substantial question of law existed as appellants failed to claim impounding of stamp duty for the alleged lease deed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.A.No. 190 of 2009
Against the judgment dated 25.06.2009 and decree dated 07.07.2009 passed and signed by the District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 106/2008.
For the Appellants: Mr. V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate.
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
D.N.Upadhyay,J. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellants against the judgment dated 25.06.2009 and decree dated 07.07.2009 passed and signed by the District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 106/2008 by which the judgment dated 31.07.2008 decree dated 11.08.2008 passed and signed by Munsif-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 58/1998 has been affirmed and the appeal stood dismissed on contest with cost.
I. Has the plaintiff got any cause of action?
II. Is the present suit legally maintainable ? III.Is the suit barred by limitation ?
IV. Is the suit land identifiable ?
V. Has the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest
over the suit property by virtue of purchase by registered sale deed no. 6855 of 1988 ?
VI. Is the plaintiff entitled to get any relief, if so to what relief.
and finally decreed the suit on contest without cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint has been confirmed and the defendants have been permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land.
came in possession over the land in question. A boundary wall was given over the said land and the defendants have been enjoying the peaceful possession. Raju Prasad Saw (D.W.1) has proved his signature on the lease deed which is Ext. A. He has also proved the signature of Gulam Rasool (Ext. A/1) and all these witnesses have stood to the test of cross-examination.
lease deed produced by them and that may be exhibited and the required stamp may be impounded. No such averment was made in the written statement. They have claimed their right, title, interest and possession on the basis of lease deed dated 25.1.1988 allegedly executed by Jogindra Kaur in favour of Raju Yadav. Since the said lease deed has not been proved in accordance with law, question of impounding the required stamp does not arise. Since the document has not been proved, the same shall not be read in evidence. It further appears that the plaintiff has not made any prayer for recovery of possession rather the suit was filed only for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession and further grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants have also claimed that they are having possession over the suit land by virtue of alleged lease deed but they have not made any counter claim for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land.
[D.N.Upadhyay,J.]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 11.09.2015 P.K.S./N.A.F.R.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law arises regarding the inadmissibility of an unregistered lease deed and lack of stamp duty payment.
Whether the appellants can set up a case based on an allegation that stamp duty was payable for the first time in the appeal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Yadav
Pappu Yadav
Radha Mohan Singh
Amrendra Kumar
D.N.Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
