Dismissed

Kailash Mahto And Ors. v. Gango Mahto And Anr.

Jharkhand HC5 Nov 2019SA/90/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed this second appeal. The Court held that the lower courts correctly dismissed the strict declaratory suit for failing to declare the appellant's sale deed valid and seeking positive relief. No substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC as there was no perversity in the lower courts' finding that the appellant was not in possession.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal No.90 of 2017 stood dismissed, and the impugned decree was affirmed.

Kailash Mahto And Ors. Vs Gango Mahto And Anr. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.90 of 2017

¶3

--------

¶4

Kailash Mahto

¶5

Hulash Mahto

¶6

Shyamal Mahto

¶7

All sons of Late Daulat Mahto

¶8

Mosamat Dharmi, W/o- Late Daulat Mahto

¶9

Bhuneshwar Mahto, S/o- Late Daulat Mahto

¶10

Budhani Devi

¶11

Chando Devi

¶12

Both daughter of Late Daulat Mahto.

¶13

All residents of Villate-Khetko, Tola-Kariyatpur, PO-Khetko, PS-Bagodar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand-825322.

¶14

…… Plaintiff/Appellant-Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

1(a) Most. Sumri, W/o- Late Gango Mahto 1(b) Hemlal Mahto, S/o- Late Gango Mahto 1(c) Prayag Mahto, S/o Late Gango Mahto

¶17

Sr. No.1(a) to 1(c) all residents of Village- Khetko, PS-Khetko, PO- Bagodar, District-Giridih.

¶18

1(d) Sabiya Devi, W/o-Sewa Mahto, D/o Late Gango Mahto, R/o VillageSarukudar, PO- Achaljamu, PS-Vishnugarh, District- Hazaribagh.

¶19

1(e) Tuliya Devi, W/o- Teklal Mahto, D/o Late Gango Mahto, R/o-VillageTilaiya, PO-Atki, PS-Pirtand, District-Giridih.

¶20

1(f) Ghoghi Devi, W/o-Baleshwar Mahto, D/o-Late Gango Mahto, R/oVillage- Beko, PO-Beko, PS-Bagodar, District- Giridih.

¶21

Mohar Mahto

¶22

Son of Late Bhuklal Mahto, R/o Village-Khetko, PO-Khetko, PSBagodar, District-Giridih.

¶23

.… Defendants-Respondents-Respondents

¶24

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶26

------For the Appellants : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Senior Advocate For the Respondents :

¶27

¶28

06 / Dated 05^th November, 2019

¶29

1. Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶30

2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2016 and 13.12.2016 respectively, passed by the learned District and Additional Session Judge-VIII, Giridih in Title Appeal No.03 of 2014 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the Title Appeal No.03 of 2014 and affirm the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 and 03.01.2014 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Giridih in Title Suit No.185 of 2002.

¶31

¶32

3. In brief, the case of appellants/plaintiff in the court below was that 2.91 acres of land of Khata No.29 of Mouja Khetko, Thana No.257, Bagodar, District Giridih was recorded in the name of one Kewal Mahto. After the death of Kewal Mahto and his wife Gunjari Devi, the said land was inherited by their only daughter, Mosmat Tekani Devi, who came in exclusive possession over the same.

¶33

It was further case that Mosmat Tekani Devi fell in need of money and she sold the said land to the appellants/plaintiff vide a sale deed dated 17.12.90 after receipt of consideration money of Rs.15,000/-. After the purchase, the appellants/plaintiff came into exclusive possession of the said land and he executed two wells on plot no.4044, raised a compound wall around it and planted a Kathal tree and two bamboo clumps on plot no.4044. The appellants/plaintiff also planted two bamboos clumps on plot no.4048.

¶34

The appellants/plaintiff was further made out the case in the court below that in the month of August, 2000 he went to the Anchal Office to get this land mutated in his name, but he came to know that the defendants had already got their name mutated with respect to half of the land area i.e. 1.45.1/2 acres on the basis of a sale deed no.3098 dated 12.03.1991 executed by Mosmat Takani. The appellants/plaintiff also learnt that the sale deed dated 17.12.90 executed in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by a deed of cancellation dated 12.03.91. Thereafter the appellants/plaintiff obtained certified copies of the deed of cancellation and the sale deed no.3098 dated 11.10.2001 and 09.11.2001 respectively and filed a demand cancellation case no.67 of 2000-01. The appellants/plaintiff has further stated that on the basis of the sale deed dated 12.03.91, the defendants interfered in the possession of the plaintiff on 15.11.02.

¶35

The cause of action for the suit as per the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiff, arose in the month of August, 2000 and also on 09.07.2001, 11.10.2001, 15.11.2002 and thereafter on day to day basis. The suit was valued at Rs.7,500/- for the purpose of jurisdiction.

¶36

On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the appellants/plaintiff was prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶37

¶38

(a) For a decree declaring the sale deed no.3098 dated 12.03.91 executed by Mosmat Takani in favour of defendants Gango Mahto and Mohan Mahto as illegal, inoperative, void and paper transactions, so far the suit lands is concerned.

¶39

(b) For the costs of the suit and the interest thereon pendentelite.

¶40

¶41

On receipt of summons, both the defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement. The defendants have contended that the suit is not maintainable in present form and it is barred by the law of limitation, waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. The appellants/plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and it is grossly undervalued. According to the defendants, the suit is also hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

¶42

The respondents/defendants denied the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiff and have stated that although the sale deed no.14551 dated 17.12.90 came into existence but it was without consideration. Daulat Mahto only promised to pay the consideration money of Rs.15,000/- to Mosmat Tekani. Only on the said promise, the sale deed was executed and registered. However, the plaintiff did not pay the consideration amount to Mosmat Tekani. As a result, Mosmat Tekani cancelled the plaintiff’s sale deed dated 17.12.90 by a deed of cancellation no.3073 dated 12.03.91. On the same day i.e. on 12.03.91 itself, Mosmat Tekani executed another sale deed no.3098 in favour of the defendants with respect of 1.45 ½ acres of land under Khata No.29 for a consideration money of Rs.7500/-.

¶43

The respondents/defendants further pleaded that the Mosmat Tekani never delivered her khas possession of the suit land to the appellants/plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale deed because of the non-payment of the consideration money by him. Rather, she remained in actual khas possession over the suit land. The respondents/defendants have further stated that the appellants/plaintiff did not dig up any well or raised boundary wall on plot no.4044 and also did not plant any Kathal tree or bamboo clumps. In fact, it was Gunjari Devi (the mother of the Mosmat Tekani) who had dug up wells and planted Kathal tree and bamboo clumps over the suit land. After the purchase of 1.45 ½ acres of land from Mosamat

¶44

¶45

Tekni, the two defendants came into its possession and since then, they have been growing crops like potato, maize and paddy over it. The rest 1.45 ½ acres out of total 2.91 acres of land remained in the possession of Mosamat Tekani and it was inherited by her legal heirs after her death. On the basis of these grounds, the respondents/defendants have contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

On the above, the trial court has framed the issues and after discussing the evidences and the exhibits, dismissed the suit.

¶47

Aggrieved with the same, appellant/plaintiff has filed the appeal being Title Appeal No.03 of 2014 which was decided vide judgment dated 28.11.2016 by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Giridih who affirmed the finding of the trial court.

¶48

Aggrieved with the same, the appellants/plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.

¶49

4. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in the impugned judgment the issue with regard to the cancellation of sale deed was not framed by the court below and that’s why there is perversity in the judgment of the court below.

¶50

He further submits that it is well settled proposition of law that when the sale deed is null and void there is no need of challenging the cancellation deed.

¶51

Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Vrs. Munna Lal & Ors. dated 21.12.2017. He further argues that there is perversity in the judgment and that is the substantial question of law to admit the Second Appeal.

¶52

Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that so far as the Ext.3 is concerned, there is no finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court below.

¶53

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the trial court as well as appellate court framed the issues for deciding the suit. The trial court as well as appellate court have framed the issues at

¶54

¶55

paragraph 10 and 7 respectively of the judgment of trial court as well appellate court. The appellant/plaintiff examined five witnesses and relied upon the documents which were marked as Ext.1 to 3. The respondents/defendants examined six witnesses which were marked as Ext.A to D.

¶56

The trial court as well as appellate court while discussing the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and documentary evidence, came to the finding that the appellants/plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question at the time of filing of the suit. The court below further found that the appellant/plaintiff ought to have made prayer for further relief regarding recovery of possession. The appellant/plaintiff ought to have asked for positive reliefs in his favour like declaration of his title as well as to declare his own sale deed dated 17.12.90 (Ext.2) as legal and valid. Considering the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajasthan Bhawan Trust Vs. Most. Pradiya Devi & Ors. reported in (2003) (1) JCR 486 (JHR) the court below came to the finding a declaratory suit without seeking the main relief is ineffective, infructuous and is hit by the provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and as such a suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶57

While deciding the issue no.7, the court below came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff has not challenged the deed of cancellation dated 12.03.91 executed by Mosmat Tekani and without challenging the deed of cancellation, the subsequent sale deed dated 12.03.91 in favour of the defendants cannot be questioned. As shown above, the defendants have acquired their right and entitled over 1.45 ½ acres of land by virtue of their sale deed no.3098 dated 12.03.91 and they are in continuous possession over the same. The appellant/plaintiff in spite of knowledge, did not challenge the subsequent sale deed of the respondents/defendants within the limitation period of three years. Under such circumstances, the sale deed no.3098 cannot be declared as illegal, void or improper and came to the finding that the defendants’ sale deed is valid and legal and they have good title over the said land.

¶58

So far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the appellants is not applicable in the facts of this case

¶59

¶60

particularly to the effect that the cancellation deed was not under challenge in the court below had the court below would have come to the finding that the deed is void the matter would have been different and the judgment relied by Mr. Sahay, may have some help to the appellants but in the facts of the present appeal, the said judgment is not applicable.

¶61

This Court is also of the view that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below and/or the first appellate court and if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Ors. Vrs. Lehna Singh (Deed) by Legal Representatives reported in (2019) 7 SCC 641.

¶62

6. In view of the above findings this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal, accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.

¶63

7. I.A. No.7092 of 2017 also stands disposed of.

¶64

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶65

Madhav/-

Kailash Mahto And Ors. v. Gango Mahto And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Mahto And Ors. v. Gango Mahto And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sirnus Hembrom And Ors. Vs Junal Munda And Ors.

Lipika Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Social Welfare Development

Central Coalfields Ltd. Thr Its Vs 1A Naresh Manjhi 1B Ramesh Manjhi 1C Mani Lal Manjhi 1C Santosh Manjhi 1D Basanti Kumari

Ravijit Siyat Mathur and Others Vs Gabrial Purty And Anr.

Smt Jamuna Devi Vs Smt Chintamani Mitra

Chandra Bodhan Sahu Vs Mani Devi