Dismissed

Murat Mahto Alias Mural Lal Mahto And Ors. v. Mobin Ansari

Jharkhand HC18 Apr 2024SA/129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by defendants against concurrent findings affirming a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction based on a 1962 sale deed. The High Court found the trial court rightly drew adverse inference for withholding the original 1944 deed, held no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal at admission.

What the court decided

AI extract

Murat Mahto Alias Mural Lal Mahto And Ors. Vs Mobin… — Specific Performance | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 129 of 2016

¶2

Murat Mahto

¶3

Ram Nath Mahto

¶4

Bhuneshwar Mahto

¶5

Habibullah Ansari .... …. Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mobin Ansari .... .... Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate -----

¶12

Oral Order

¶13

11 / Dated : 18.04.2024

¶14

The appellants are defendants who have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 08/2010 whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 165 /2003 has been affirmed.

¶15

The plaintiff / respondent brought this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit land and for declaration for their right, title and interest over it.

¶16

The plaintiff claims title over the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed executed in favour of his father by one Imdad Ali vide Deed No. 287 executed on 13.01.1962.

¶17

Registered sale deed bearing No. 2114 was executed on 20.03.1944 by one Phaguwa Mahto in favour of Imdad Ali, Saheb Ali, Khotlo Mahto, Jagran Mahto and Bhikhan Mahto. Sk. Ahmad Ali who executed sale deed in favour of Sk. Bigal was the son of Imdad Ali.

¶18

After said purchase, the land was duly mutated in the name Sk. Bigal and he has been paying rent to the State regularly without any objection from any quarter. In the present survey, the name of Sk. Bigal was confirmed and Bandaparcha had been issued in favour of plaintiff. The original sale deed was with the defendants who deliberately suppressed it, but from the certified copy it will be apparent that there had been interpolation in two places and the name of Bhikhan Mahto has been added as vendee Nos. 4 and 5 at two places.

¶19

Case of the defendants as disclosed in the joint written statement is that they deny the fact that Imdad Ali was a co-purchaser in the registered deed of sale

¶20

¶21

executed in the year 1944 by Phaguwa Mahto. The possession of Sk. Bigal and the plaintiff was also denied.

¶22

The following main issues were framed:

¶23

Issue No. 7 —Whether the father of the plaintiff namely Sk. Bigal is a bona fide purchaser from Ahmad Ali by virtue of registered sale deed no. 287 executed on 13.01.1962 and acquired perfect right, title and interest in the suit land?

¶24

Issue No. 8— whether Imdad Ali was also one of the purchasers vide sale deed no. 2114, volume no. 24, executed in the year 1944, including Khotto Mahto, Jagaran Mahto, Bhikhan Mahto, Imdad Ali and Saheb Ali?

¶25

Learned trial court after extensively dealing with oral and documentary evidence answered both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit by recording a finding of fact that Imdad Ali was one of the purchasers in the sale deed in 1944 and the plaintiff acquired right, title and possession over the suit land by the sale deed executed in the name of his father by Sk. Bigal. Learned First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court.

¶26

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the sale deed executed jointly in favour of Imdad Ali in 1944 through which right, title and interest is being claimed has not been adduced into evidence and brought on record.

¶27

Learned trial court has discussed the other collateral evidences on record including Ext.2/C which is Index-1 which keeps the record of purchaser in the Registration Office to record a finding of fact that Imdad Ali was one of the co-purchasers. It rightly drew an adverse inference against the defendants for withholding original sale deed in not adducing it as evidence. There were other evidences of sale deed having been acted upon and the land having been duly mutated in the name of purchasers and successors.

¶28

I do not find any substantial question of law in view of concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below.

¶29

Under the circumstance, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶30

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶31

AKT/Satendra Uploaded

¶32

Murat Mahto Alias Mural Lal Mahto And Ors. v. Mobin Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Murat Mahto Alias Mural Lal Mahto And Ors. v. Mobin Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Choudhary And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chhutan Mahato Vs Govind Mahato and Ors.

Upadhya Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Nirmala Devi Vs Asha Rita Singh

Pradeep Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chamar Singh Pahan Alias Chamber Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand