Dr Kafil Ahmad Vs Krishna Nayak

2025:JHHC:10154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No. 33 of 2023

Dr. Kafil Ahmad, aged about 68 years, son of late Jalil Ahmad, resident of village Ishlampur, P.O. and P.S. Nautan, District West Champaran (Bihar); at present residing at Al Rahman Apartment, New Parastoli, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶5

… … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus

¶6

Krishna Nayak son of late Rameshwar nayak, resident of village Kachnar Toli (Hatia Ranchi), P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. Present address – Krishna Nayak, S/o late Rameshwar Nayak, Vill- Oberia, P.O. – Hatia, Distt. – Ranchi, Pin 834003

¶7

Md. Israil

¶8

Md. Yasin, both sons of late Idd Mohammad, resident of village Kachnar Toli, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi

¶9

Al-Ameen House Construction Cooperative Society Limited having its registered office at Kachnar Toli, Khijri Block, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi through its Secretary … … Defendants/ Respondents/Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate For the Respondents : ---

¶13

08 /10.03.2025

¶14

The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court against judgement of affirmance passed by the learned 1^st appellate court confirming the dismissal of the suit.

¶15

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.11.2022 (decree signed on 06.12.2022) passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVIII, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2019 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff – appellant has been dismissed. The trial court judgment is dated 12.10.2018 (decree signed on 22.11.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) (Additional Munsif I), Ranchi in Original Suit (Title Suit No.35 of 2005) whereby the suit has been dismissed.

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial court has submitted that the plaintiff is

¶17

1

¶18

2025:JHHC:10154

¶19

claiming the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed no.9106 dated 25.08.1990 and was also seeking recovery of possession. He submits that the claim of the plaintiff was based on registered sale deed. He submits that both the courts have not properly considered the evidences on record while dismissing the suit. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned first appellate court has also not properly considered the materials on record while confirming the judgement passed by the learned trial court.

¶20

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a prayer was also made seeking cancellation of the earlier registered sale deed no.7043 of 1983 which was prayed to be declared null and void. The learned counsel has submitted that though the issue has been framed but the same has not been properly considered.

¶21

5. After having gone through the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking a declaration of right, title, interest in connection with the suit property said to have been purchased by registered deed no.9106/sl no.6979 dated 25.08.1990 and a prayer was also made that the plaintiff had acquired indefeasible right, title and interest in the suit land through adverse possession. A prayer was also made by the plaintiff that if the plaintiff is not found in possession, a decree be passed for eviction of defendant nos.2 and 3 and restore the possession to the plaintiff in the suit land and the defendant nos.2 and 3 be directed to remove all construction raised over the suit land. A further relief was also prayed in the suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed registered in the office of District Sub Registry, Ranchi being Sale Deed No.7043 dated 28.06.1983 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3 be cancelled and declared as null and void and it be declared that the Sale Deed No.7043 dated 28.06.1983 does not affect the plaintiff’s right, title, interest and possession in the suit land. A prayer was further made seeking permanent injunction against the defendants.

¶22

6. As per the case of the plaintiff, the lands of R.S. Khata no.1 plot no.370 measuring an area of 4.8 decimals out of total area 4.21 Acres of land was seized and possessed by defendant no.1 [Krishna Nayak]

¶23

2

¶24

2025:JHHC:10154

¶25

as absolute owner thereof out of which the defendant no.1 sold one acre of land by virtue of four registered deeds of sale to the defendant no.4 being deed nos.5632 dated 04.06.1986, 5749 dated 07.06.1986, 5825 dated 11.06.1986 and 5883 dated 12.06.1986. Likewise, defendant no.1 further sold an area of 1.58 acres of land to the said defendant no.4 by virtue of four registered deed of sale being nos.1249 dated 01.02.1989, 1267 dated 02.02.1989, 1387 dated 04.02.1989 and 1407 dated 06.02.1989. After purchase of the lands, the said defendant no.4 [the Housing Society] came into possession of the suit land and got his name mutated vide Mutation case no.38R27/89-90. The said defendant no.4 sold and transferred the suit land to the plaintiff by virtue of registered deed of sale being no.9106 dated 25.08.1990 and since then the plaintiff is in continuous possession. It is further case of the plaintiff that on 30.08.2004 when the plaintiff started boundary wall on the suit land the son of defendant no.3 demanded rangdari for which the plaintiff reported the matter to the police and police instituted a case. Ultimately police submitted charge sheet and after trial the accused has been held guilty and released after due admonition as per the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Further the defendant nos.2 and 3 initiated a proceeding u/s 144 of the Cr.P.C. in which the plaintiff was cited as second party in which it has been held that the first parties are first purchasers. The said order was not passed by applying judicial mind and true spirit of law and the ld. SDM Ranchi passed erroneous order. The plaintiff further claimed that his title was adverse to all as he has been continuously in peaceful possession of more than 12 years. The defendant nos.2 and 3 have no right to enter into the possession of the land. But in spite of this they raised construction on the suit land. Having all the above pleading the plaintiff filed this suit. 7. Out of four defendants only defendant nos.2 & 3 filed their written statement. The case against defendant nos.1 and 4 has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.09.2006. The case of the defendant nos.2 and 3 as per their written statement is that they purchased 4 ½ kathas of land along with house constructed thereon

¶26

3

¶27

2025:JHHC:10154

¶28

being portion of plot no.370 khata no.1 situated at Mouza – Kachnar Toli P.S. Jagarnathpur Dist – Ranchi by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 28.06.1983 being deed no.7043 from defendant no.1 Krishna Nayak. After purchased the said land with house, the defendant nos.2 and 3 came in possession and got their name mutated vide mutation case no.560 R27/88-99 and were paying rent to the State. The land which was already purchased by the defendant nos.2 and 3 was again sold by defendant no.4 to the plaintiff, though defendant no.4 has no right, title, interest and possession on the same. It is further stated in the written statement that it is false to allege that the plaintiff had come in possession of the suit land and it was also false to say that the defendant nos.2 and 3 filed M. Case no.2296/2004 U/s 144 Cr.P.C rather the case was initiated on the basis of report of Jagarnathpur Police.

¶29

8. The learned trial court framed as many has 9 issues and both the plaintiff as well as the defendant nos.2 and 3 led evidences both oral and documentary, including the respective sale deeds. The defendants also produced the rent receipt and other documentary evidences including electricity bills in connection with the construction over the suit property.

¶30

9. The issues framed by the learned trial court are quoted as under:

¶31

i. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in its present form?

¶32

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

¶33

iii. Whether the sale deed executed by Al-Ameen House construction Co-Operative Society Ltd. on 25.08.1990 in favor of Kafil Ahmad is a valid document?

¶34

iv. Whether the sale deed executed by Al- Amin House Construction Co-Operative Society Ltd. was acted upon and the plaintiff took possession of the suit property?

¶35

v. Whether the plaintiff is first purchaser of the land in question or the defendant no. 2 and 3 are the earlier purchaser of the land in question?

¶36

vi. Whether defendant no. 2 and 3 purchased the suit land through its rightful owner on 28.06.1983 and the plaintiff Kafil Ahmad purchased the same land on 25.08.1990 which is invalid document?

¶37

4

¶38

2025:JHHC:10154

¶39

vii. Whether defendant no. 2 and 3 have been coming in peaceful possession of the suit land or not?

¶40

viii. Whether the sale deed dated 28.06.1983 executed by Sri Krishna Nayak in favor of Md. Israil and Md. Yashin can be cancelled and declared as null and void as the same has not affected the plaintiffs right, title and interest and possession over the suit land?

¶41

ix. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief(s) as claimed?”

¶42

10. The learned trial court recorded the admitted case of the parties based on their pleadings and evidences, and arguments was that Krishna Nayak (Defendant no.1) was the erstwhile owner of Khata No.1 Plot No.370, total area 4.21 acres; the defendant no.1 had sold and transferred the area of 1 acre and further 1.58 acres total 2.58 acres of land to defendant no.4 the housing society by virtue of 8 registered sale deeds (Exhibit 3 to 3/f).

¶43

11. The learned trial court further recorded that the dispute between the parties is that the plaintiff purchased suit land mentioned in the schedule from defendant no.4 by virtue of registered deed of sale (Exhibit 1/2) and the said defendant no.4 had purchased 2.58 acres of land from defendant no.1. On the other hand, it was the case of the defendants that they had purchased 4 ½ kathas of land from same defendant no.1, and that the purchase of the defendant nos.2 and 3 was earlier in point of time than the purchase of land by defendant no.4 and both the parties had rival claim with respect to the possession of the land.

¶44

12. The learned trial court further recorded that admittedly the plaintiff had not filed any chit of paper except the sale deed dated Exhibit 1/2. On the other hand, the defendant nos.2 and 3 apart from sale deed Exhibit A had also filed the correction slip Exhibit B series of rent receipts, Ext. E series as well as electricity bills Ext. C and F series to prove their case. The learned trial court also recorded that the plaintiff had not claimed the land covered in the sale deed of defendant nos.2 and 3 vide Exhibit A though the plaintiff claimed that the sale deed of defendant nos.2 and 3 is void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff. The learned trial court recorded that on the other hand,

¶45

5

¶46

2025:JHHC:10154

¶47

the defendants stated that the same suit land was already purchased by the defendants and thereafter sold by defendant no.4 to the plaintiff. The learned trial court also recorded that the plaintiff had not prayed for any demarcation of the land through appointment of authorities by the government as per rules and the prayer for appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner was already rejected. 13. The learned trial court, after providing the aforesaid background, decided issue nos.3 to 8 from paragraph 19 onwards. After considering the cases of the respective parties and the materials brought on record, the court gave its findings in paragraphs 26 to 31 as follows:

¶48

“26. The plaintiff to prove his claim filed Ext – ½ the sale deed by and from which he has said to have been purchased the suit land. On perusal of the recital of the sale deed I find that in the sale deed it is mentioned that through various sale deeds society had purchased the lands but it is not mentioned in the sale deed that on what specific deed the land which had transferred to the plaintiff was purchased by the society. Admittedly a map has been attached with the sale deed but the same is not extract from original village map as such it can’t possible to held that what specific portion has been purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not examined the Amin who prepared the map attached with the sale deed. I further find that it is the case of the plaintiff that his purchased land was forcibly possessed by the defendant but save and except the sale deed Ext ½ nothing has been produced that the plaintiff ever been come in possession on the land which has been purchased by him.

¶49

27. Apart from that I find the plaintiff claimed to be purchased the land in question in the year 1990, and as per own version of the plaintiff lis has been started on 2004 onwards what was the reason that the plaintiff has not mutated his name after purchased the same till passing of fourteen years.

¶50

28. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that SDM Ranchi in a proceeding started under section 144 Cr.P.C. being M.Case No. 2296/2004 passed order against the plaintiff. The said order has been exhibited

¶51

6

¶52

2025:JHHC:10154

¶53

in this case as Ext-D on behalf of the defendant. On perusal of the same, I find that the same has been started with specific boundary. I failed to understand that why the plaintiff has not claimed about any demarcation on the said case or in the later stage that the property claimed by the defendants are not the same property in which plaintiff lay claim. I am of the view that it is pure case of demarcation from the competent authority appointed for the same by the State Govt. as per law.

¶54

29. I find that the plaintiff claimed the defendants have occupied the lands which was purchased by the plaintiffs from the society but no such type of cogent evidence available in the case record that the defendants have occupied the lands of the plaintiff rather they are in possession of the lands as per their purchase prior to the plaintiff.

¶55

30. It is the cardinal principle of Civil Justice that the civil case must be decided on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" and the preponderance of probabilities suggested in favor of the defendants. As the defendants successfully discharged their onus that after purchased the lands from defendant no.1 Krishna Nayak vide Ext-A they came into physical possession over the same and thereafter they got their name mutated from the office of concerned C.O: vide Ext-B.

¶56

31. I find that in the recital of the sale deed of the plaintiff it is not mentioned that on what specific deed the defendant no. 4 purchased the property and sold and transferred to the plaintiff. Only it is mentioned that through various deeds society purchased the lands. Since the defendants have admitted the sale deeds of the society as such I am of the view that the claim of the defendant no. 2 and 3 are genuine.”

¶57

14. The aforesaid finding of the learned trial court reveal that the learned trial court came to a definite finding that the plaintiff claimed that the defendants had occupied the land which was purchased by the plaintiff from the society [defendant no.4] but no such type of cogent evidence was available in the case record to substantiate that the defendants have occupied the land of the plaintiff. The learned trial

¶58

7

¶59

2025:JHHC:10154

¶60

court has clearly recorded that rather the concerned defendants are in possession of the land as purchased by them vide Exhibit-A and their date of purchase was prior to that of the plaintiff. The learned trial court also recorded that the defendants proved that they came in physical possession of the property covered by Exhibit A and got their name mutated in the concerned Circle office. The learned court also recorded that the recital of the sale deed of the plaintiff did not mention that on what specific deed the defendant no.4 purchased the property and sold and transferred it to the plaintiff and it was only mentioned in the sale deed that the society had purchased the properties through various sale deeds. Ultimately, the court recorded that the claim of defendant nos.2 and 3 was genuine. The learned court ultimately recorded that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.4 in favour of the plaintiff was not acted upon and the defendant nos.2 and 3 are the first purchasers of the land mentioned in their sale deed vide Exhibit A and came in possession over their respective purchased area.

¶61

15. With respect to the prayer for cancellation of the sale deed, the learned trial court recorded that there was no mention of the payment of consideration in the sale deed marked as Exhibit A. However, upon perusal of the materials on record, it found that the vendor of defendant nos. 2 and 3, namely Krishna Nayak (defendant no. 1), never raised any objection or claimed that the consideration amount had not actually been paid. The learned court recorded that the claim of non-payment of consideration was made by the stranger to the sale deed after more than 23 years and held that such a plea at the instance of the plaintiff was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned trial court also recorded that map attached to the sale deed of the plaintiff did not crystalize as to which portion of the property was purchased by the plaintiff. The learned court also recorded that the suit land and the area claimed by the plaintiff were different from each other. The learned court ultimately decided the issue nos.3 to 8 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3.

¶62

8

¶63

2025:JHHC:10154

¶64

16. While deciding issue nos. 1, 2 and 9, the learned trial court held that the sale deed of defendant nos. 2 and 3 were perfect, valid and genuine and held that the suit in the present form was not maintainable.

¶65

17. The learned court also recorded that there is option available to the plaintiff to file a proper demarcation case so that the actual possession of the land purchased by the plaintiff could be gathered and if the land purchased by the plaintiff is different from the land purchased from the defendants or vice versa, then there can be a cause of action to file suit and ultimately the suit was held to be not maintainable. Issue Nos.1, 2 and 9 was also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

¶66

18. So far as the learned first appellate court is concerned, the points for determination were as under:

¶67

(1) Whether defendant no. 2 and 3 had purchased the suit land through its rightful owner on 28.06.1983 and the plaintiff Kafil Ahmad purchased the same land on 25.08.1990 through registered sale deed and the subsequent sale deed of the said piece of land is a valid document?

¶68

(II) Whether the sale deed dated 28.06.1983 executed by Sri Krishna Nayak in favor of Md. Israil and Md. Yashin can be canceled and declared as null and void due non-payment of any consideration amount?

¶69

(III) Whether the defendants have acquired valid right, title and possession over the disputed land?

¶70

(IV) Whether the sale deed dated 28.06.1983 executed by Sri Krishna Nayak in favor of Md. Israil and Md. Yashin is a forged document?

¶71

(V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Temporary/Permanent injunction on the suit land in his favour?

¶72

(VI) Whether the Court below has misread and misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties?

¶73

19. While deciding the point of determination no.I , the learned 1^st appellate court held that when there are two successive transfers of the

¶74

9

¶75

2025:JHHC:10154

¶76

same property, the later must submit to the earlier and decided the point against the appellant. While deciding the point of determination nos.II and IV , the learned first appellate court decided the same against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants by observing that the person who execute the sale deed was the best person to state or depose before the court as to that no consideration amount was paid to him by the purchaser or there was any fraud played or there was any misrepresentation, coercion or force for executing the sale deed. Such evidence was not brought on record by the defendant no.1 who was the vendor of the defendant nos.2 and 3 way back in the year 1983 and the plaintiff had no answer as to under what compelling circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2005 whereas the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property by registered deed of the year 1990. The plaintiff has not even given a date when he came to know about the alleged fraud. While deciding the point of determination no. III , the learned first appellate court by referring to the proof of the evidences led by the defendants and also by referring to the section 101 of the Evidence Act that it was for the plaintiff to prove the existence of fact on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming the relief. The learned first appellate court ultimately held that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the point and decided the same against the plaintiff. The learned 1^st appellate court ultimately decided all the points of determination against the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal.

¶77

20. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, in favour of the defendant nos.2 and 3 that they acquired the property by virtue of previous registered sale deed and they were also in possession of the suit property. The learned court also recorded that in the recital of the sale deed of the plaintiff, it has not been mentioned that from what specific deed, the defendant no. 4 purchased the property and sold and transferred the suit property to the plaintiff. No perversity as such has been found in connection with appreciation of facts and law involved in the case and both the judgements are well reasoned judgements.

10

2025:JHHC:10154

Saurav/

21. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions, no substantial question of law is involved in this case, which is hereby dismissed.

¶82

22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶83

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶84

11

Dr Kafil Ahmad v. Krishna Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Kafil Ahmad v. Krishna Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rubi Devi Vs Ritesh Kumar Gupta

Rabindra Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

Shanti Kunwar And Ors. Vs Parashnath Keshri And Anr.

Gaurhari Paul And Ors. Vs Jay Chandra Banerjee And Ors.

Binoy Dokania Vs Decorum Nirman Pvt. Ltd. through Mr Shib Kumar Parsuramka

Employer in Relation to the Management of M/S Hindustan Copper Limited through Sri Arjun Lohara Vs Ex Employees Coordination Committee Mosabani through Its General Secretary Sri Sujit Kumar Shaw