Dismissed

Panchu Lal Jain Alias Agarwal v. Kiran Devi Jain

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2024SA/55/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against reversal by first appellate court, which decreed the suit only partly regarding plot No.251 but dismissed it for plot No.222 as the unregistered sale deed's description did not match the plaint schedule. The High Court held the mismatch was a finding of fact, dismissed the appeal as frivolous with Rs.5,000 cost to JHALSA.

What the court decided

AI extract

Panchu Lal Jain Alias Agarwal Vs Kiran Devi Jain — Specific Performance | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

(Against the judgment dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Rajmahal in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2010)

¶4

Panchu Lal Jain @ Agarwal aged about 85 years, son of Late Chhote Lal Agarwal, resident of Kasim Bazar Rajmahal, P.O. and P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj.

¶5

.... .... …. Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kiran Devi Jain wife of Sri Promod Kumar Jain

¶8

Santosh Kumar Jain son of Late Genilal Jain,

¶9

Both are residents of Kasim Bazar, Rajmahal, P.O. and P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj.

¶10

.... .... …. Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶11

Chandu Lal Agarwal claiming to be son of Sarwan Tanti allegedly resident of Barhait, P.O. and P.S. Barhait, District Sahibganj allegedly also residing at Dumka Town P.O., P.S. and District Sahibganj.

¶12

.... .... …. Defendant/Respondent/Respondent

¶13

------

¶14

For the Appellants : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate ------

¶15

P R E S E N T

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶17

¶18

By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶19

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Rajmahal in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2010 whereby and

¶20

¶21

S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶22

where under the learned first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court; which dismissed the suit entirely and held that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove partial right over the Plot No.251 of Jamabandi No.29 as mentioned in schedule A of the plaint and the right, title and interest of the appellant/plaintiff was confirmed regarding the sale in respect of the said plot but maintained the dismissal of the suit in respect of the Plot No.222 of the said schedule A of the plaint, because the case of the plaintiff being the plaintiff purchased the same through an unregistered sale-deed which has been marked Ext.2 but the details of the land, which are given in the unregistered sale-deed, does not match with the schedule of the plaint.

¶23

The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.05 of 2006 in the court of Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Rajmahal for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the schedule A land. The plaintiff also prayed for restoration of possession through the machinery of court if found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and the consequential reliefs.

¶24

The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit property earlier belonged to Masomat Jitni in two different plots, plot No.222 of area 1 bigha, 1 katha and 3 dhur and plot No.251 of area 5 katha, 9 dhur both under Jamabandi No.6 of Mauja Maina talab, Rajmahal. Masomat Jitni died issueless. Prior to her death, Masomat Jitni executed an unregistered sale-deed for consideration amount of Rs.98/- in respect of plot No.222 of area 1 bigha, 1 katha, 3 dhur on 01.04.1958. In a certificate proceeding initiated against Masomat Jitni, plot No.251

¶25

¶26

S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶27

measuring 5 katha, 9 dhur was sold to Kishan Lal Saraogi in public auction on 19.07.1938. After death of Kishal Lal Saraogi, his grandson namely Baldeo Prasad Jain inherited the said property of plot No.251. Baldeo Prasad Jain sold the plot No.251 to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration on 09.04.2005 by a registered sale-deed, which has been marked Ext.1. As the defendants claimed the purchase of suit land by the registered sale-deed, the plaintiff upon enquiry found that the defendant-1^st party namely Santosh Kumar Jain obtained power-of-attorney from the defendant No.2 namely Chandu Lal Agarwal and Chandu Lal Agarwal is claiming to be son of Masomat Jitni and sold the suit property to the defendant No.1 but as such contention of the defendants was incorrect, false and baseless, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants in their written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and denied the averments made in the plaint. This defendant further pleaded that Kiran Devi has acquired right, title & possession over the suit land by virtue of sale deed no. 3441 Dt. 14.10.2003.

¶28

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following eight issues:-

¶29

I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

¶30

II. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

¶31

III. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit?

¶32

IV. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties?

¶33

V. Whether the plaintiff has acquired valid right, title, interest over the suit land by virtue of unregistered sale deed dt. 1.4.1958 executed by Jitni Devi and

¶34

¶35

S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶36

registered sale deed 1454 dt. 9.4.05 executed by Baldeo Prasad Jain, Amit Kumar Jain in favour of Plaintiff?

¶37

VI. Whether the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is sufficient?

¶38

VII. To what relief or reliefs plaintiff is entitled for?

¶39

VIII. Whether Kiran Devi (defendant 1st party) has acquired any right, title & possession over the suit land by virtue of sale deed no. 3441 Dt. 14.10.2003?

¶40

In support of his case, the plaintiff examined five witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 7 whereas from the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and the defendants proved the documents which have been marked Ext.A and B.

¶41

The learned trial court first took up issue No.V and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the sale certificate in favour of Kishan Lal Saraogi was not genuine. Hence, no valid title has accrued to Kishan Lal Saraogi. So, consequently the subsequent purchasers have not acquired any right, title or interest. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion that no right, title or interest has accrued to the plaintiff on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed and decided the issue against the plaintiff.

¶42

The learned trial court next took up issue No.VIII and came to the conclusion that the defendant-1^st party namely Kiran Devi has not acquired any right, title, interest or possession over the suit land by virtue of sale-deed No.3441 dated 16.10.2003 and decided the issue No.VIII against the defendants.

¶43

The learned trial court thereafter took up issue No.IV and held that it is the case of the plaintiff that Masomat Jitni died issueless having no heir. So, the property will devolve upon the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, State of

¶44

¶45

S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶46

Jharkhand was necessary party to the said suit but the State of Jharkhand has not been arrayed as a party. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

¶47

The learned trial court thereafter took up issue Nos.II and VI together and disposed of the same as not pressed.

¶48

The learned trial court thereafter took up issue Nos.I and III together and came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable as framed and the plaintiff has got no valid cause of action for the suit. The learned trial court lastly took up issue No.VII and came to the conclusion that both the plaintiff and the defendants failed to prove their respective cases. As there is no heir of Masomat Jitni, therefore, the Doctrine of Escheat will apply to suit property and the same has vested to the State of Jharkhand at the time of death of Masomat Jitni and dismissed the suit on contest.

¶49

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.17 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Sahebganj which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment, as already indicated above.

¶50

Learned first appellate court, on the basis of the materials in the record and the submissions made before it, formulated the following six points for determination:-

¶51

1. Whether the appellant had any right, title and interest in the suit land?

¶52

2. Whether the appellant at any point of time had possession of suit property?

¶53

3. Whether Jeetni Mousmat had any issue or not from her husband shrawan Tanti?

¶54

¶55

S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶56

4. Whether the sale deed of B.P. Jain to the appellant was as per law?

¶57

5. Whether the Ld. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and documents on record correctly?

¶58

6. Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the original suit and this appeal?

¶59

Learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and first took up the point for determination No.1. The learned first appellate court considered that in Ext.2 i.e. the unregistered saledeed in respect of plot No.222, the boundaries was mentioned as on the north Abdul Hasim, to the south Kali Prasad which was contrary to the boundary mentioned of plot No.222 as in the plaint, as in the plaint it was mentioned that the boundary to the north is Dhuldhul Singh and to the south is Madhu Sah, on the east is Dhuldhul Singh and Diggi Talab on the west Dr. S.K. Alimulla. So, the first appellate court observed that the situational direction of the land mentioned in the plaint does not match with the unregistered sale-deed. So, the land mentioned in the unregistered sale-deed has not been proved by the plaintiff to be the land described in the schedule of the plaint in respect of plot No.222 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no right, title, interest over the plot No.222 which he has purchased through unregistered sale-deed as the details of the land, which are given in the unregistered sale-deed, does not match with this schedule of the plaint; therefore no relief can be granted in favour of the plaintiff beyond the pleadings of the plaintiff but came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant has right, title or interest in respect of plot No.251 which the plaintiff purchased from B.P. Jain and Amit Jain who are

¶60

¶61

S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶62

the descendants of Kishan Lal Saraogi and allowed the suit to the aforesaid extent by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court.

¶63

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned courts below have failed to take into consideration that since the plaintiff purchased the plot No.222 for a consideration amount of Rs.98/-. Hence, there is no need to register the sale-deed. Hence, the courts have committed a grave error. It is next submitted that as the first appellate court has held that the defendant-1^st party has no legal right or possession over the suit property, hence the first appellate court ought to have accepted the case of the plaintiff and should have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It is next submitted that the judgment passed by the trial court is erroneous in holding that the suit property will vest upon the State Government by way of escheat and otherwise also the trial court has not passed a correct judgment. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has partially allowed the appeal, be set aside. 16. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the whole Second Appeal is misconceived. As already mentioned above, the judgment of dismissal of the suit has already been set aside by the first appellate court by the impugned judgment. So, it was needless for the appellant to agitate before this court that the trial court passed an erroneous judgment. Though it is contended in ground No.ii in the appeal memo that the courts below failed to take into consideration that the sale-deed for a

¶64

¶65

S.A. No.55 of 2021

¶66

consideration amount of Rs.98/- only do not need to be registered but it is pertinent to mention here that the appellate court in the impugned judgment has nowhere not considered the unregistered sale-deed which has been marked Ext.2, of course, with objection; on the ground that the same has not been registered. It is crystal clear from the impugned judgment itself, the first appellate court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish his title in respect of part of the property of the Schedule A of the plaint bearing plot No.222 as the boundary of the sale-deed which was marked Ext.2 did not tally with the boundary of the plot No.222 as mentioned in the plaint, the detailed description of which has already been discussed in the internal page No.11 of the judgment of the first appellate court.

¶67

In the appeal memo of this second appeal, not a word has been uttered regarding the said mismatch of the description of the land as mentioned in the sale deed marked Exhibit-2 vis-à-vis its description as mentioned in the plaint. In respect of plot no. 222. The said mismatch is undoubtedly apparent and a finding of fact which do not warrant interference of this court.

¶68

Under such circumstances, this Second Appeal, being a misconceived and is a frivolous one, is dismissed but with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the appellant with Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within two months.

¶69

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶70

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18^th of September, 2024 AFR/ Saroj

¶71

¶72

S.A. No.55 of 2021

Panchu Lal Jain Alias Agarwal v. Kiran Devi Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Panchu Lal Jain Alias Agarwal v. Kiran Devi Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pokhan Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Sharma Mistri And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunder Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fakir Mahto And Ors. Vs Guran Mahto Alias Gurucharan Mahto

Firoza Khanam Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Mukesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pokhan Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Sharma  Mistri And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunder Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fakir Mahto And Ors. Vs Guran Mahto Alias Gurucharan Mahto

Firoza Khanam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Sharma Mistri And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand