Dismissed

Basant Sahu v. Laxman Sahu and Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2019SA/123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal from a title suit, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant's claim to partition and 1/4th share. The High Court held that the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to prove a mistake in the sale deed or establish his title against the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC was dismissed as the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Basant Sahu Vs Laxman Sahu and Ors. — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No. 123 of 2014

¶3

----

¶4

Basant Sahu son of Jerku Sahu @ Bokha Sahu, resident of Village Banagutu, Post Office and Police Station Basia, District Gumla.

¶5

… Appellant

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Laxman Sahu

¶8

Arjun Sahu

¶9

Janak Sahu Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, all sons of Bokha Sahu. Residents of Village Banagutu, Post Office and Police Station Basia, District Gumla.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

--- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶12

----

¶13

For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents:

¶14

¶15

8/ 15.07.2019 This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment dated 9^th May, 2014 (decree signed on 24.05.2014) passed by the Principal District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No.5 of 2015, whereby Title Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed affirming the judgment dated 28.02.2005 (decree signed on 14.03.2005) passed by the Munsif, Gumla in Partition Suit No.12 of 2001.

¶16

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and claimed 1/4^th share of the suit property and also prayed for delivery of possession through the process of Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 had purchased the lands mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint for a valid consideration. After purchasing the lands, they came in possession over the land and got the same partitioned amongst themselves. The plaintiff, then dug trenches for construction of his house, but, the defendants filled the said ditch and defendants started digging a ditch. The plaintiff objected. The plaintiff claims that in the sale deed due to mistake, the name of the father of the plaintiff is mentioned as Bokha Sahu and hence Bokha Sahu, who was defendant No.4, is creating hindrance and was determined to dispossess the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is entitled to 1/4^th share.

¶17

3. Defendants appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff never purchased the suit land. In fact, it is the

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

defendant No.4, who purchased the suit land in the name of his four sons. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff deliberately did not join one of the sons of defendant No.4 in the suit. It is their case that the plaintiff is not related to the suit property and there cannot be any partition. It is the defendants, who are the absolute owners. It is the case of the defendants that the fourth son of the defendant No.4 is also named as Basant Sahu and that is the reason, plaintiff is trying to create hindrance.

¶20

4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings 8 issues were framed. Issues Nos. (IV), (V), (VI) and (VII) are as follows: -

¶21

(IV) Has the deed writer by mistake or due to inadvertence the name of the father of the plaintiff written as Bokha Sahu in place of Jerku @ Bokha?

¶22

(V) Is the plaintiff entitled to ¼ share of the suit land?

¶23

(VI) Is there unit of title and possession over the suit land?

¶24

(VII) Is the suit land purchased in the name of all of the four sons of defendant No.4 and son of defendant No.4 Basant Sahu is also known as Budheshwar Sahu?

¶25

5. The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. Defendants have adduced three witnesses and they were cross examined by the plaintiff. After going through the evidence adduced by the defendants, the Court below came to a conclusion that all the vendees in the registered deed of sale are sons of defendant No.4 and the plaintiff failed to prove that there was mistake committed by the deed writer. Thus, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff.

¶26

6. The First Appellate Court also came to the same finding after independently assessing the judgment and dismissed the appeal.

¶27

7. Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of both the Courts below are absolutely bad and the partition should have been allowed.

¶28

8. After going through the judgment, I find that the plaintiff has

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

failed to prove his case. In a suit filed by the plaintiff, claiming his right, title and interest over the property, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his case by oral and documentary evidence. In this case, the plaintiff had to prove that a mistake was committed while drafting the deed. Surprisingly, the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence. Merely cross examining the defendants’ witnesses will not help the plaintiff in any way in proving his case. It is the plaintiff, who has to stand on his own legs and discharge the onus. In this case, the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the Courts below have rightly come to a conclusion that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has failed to prove and establish his claim.

¶31

9. No substantial question of law is involved in this case. Thus, this appeal is dismissed.

¶32

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶33

Kumar/Cp-02

Basant Sahu v. Laxman Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Sahu v. Laxman Sahu and Ors.

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

Kanthi Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baby Devi Alias Radha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Mohali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

MD Zamil Vs Debu Bangali

Jawahar Lal Prasad Vs Gulab Chand