The Patna High Court dismissed a second appeal regarding a title suit over property. Upholding lower courts' findings as questions of fact, the court ruled the plaintiff failed to prove sale deeds were nominal and held the suit barred by limitation.
Second Appeal dismissed at the admission stage itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court SA No.45 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.45 of 2010
====================================================== Madan Mohan Singh .... .... Appellant/s Versus Smt. Radha Devi & Ors. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mritunjay Pd. Singh-2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 8 12-12-2012 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Mritunjay Pd. Singh-2 appearing on behalf of the appellant under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
(2) The plaintiff-appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2009 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Banka in Title Appeal No.93 of 2007 whereby the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the title appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 24.08.2007 passed by Munsif, Banka in Title Suit No.16 of 2005.
(3) The plaintiff filed the aforesaid title suit praying for declaration that the sale deed executed by Jagdambawati Devi in favour of her daughter, Bageshwari Devi on 14.12.1964 was nominal sale deed, therefore, the subsequent sale deed dated
Patna High Court SA No.45 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 2
17.02.1986 executed by Sudhish Prasad Singh in favour of the respondent no.1, Radha Devi is illegal, null and void and title did not pass on him. It may be mentioned here that Bageshwari sold the property to her daughter, Narmada who in turn sold the said property to Sudhish Prasad Singh.
(4) On the contrary, the defendant’s case is that she has purchased the property from the original owner.
(5) Both the courts below i.e. the trial court and appellate Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case that the sale deed executed by Jagdambawati Devi in favour of her daughter, Bageshwari Devi is sham, illegal and nominal document. Both the courts below also recorded the finding that the plaintiff also failed to prove that the sale deed executed by Sudhish Prasad Singh on 17.02.1986 in favour of the present defendant no.1-respondent no.1, Radha Devi is sham, illegal and inoperative document. The courts below also recorded the finding that the plaintiff had the knowledge about the execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the contesting respondent no.1 in the year 1986 and the suit being filed in the year 2005 is barred by law of limitation.
(6) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the share of the plaintiff has also been sold by Sudhish Prasad
Patna High Court SA No.45 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 3
Singh. The learned counsel further submitted that in the sale deed itself it has been mentioned that Bageshwari sold the property to save it from land selling proceeding and the sale deed is nominal sale deed. The learned counsel further submitted that in the consolidation proceeding, the disputed land has been recorded in the jointness of the parties and without considering these aspects of the matter, the courts below have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
(7) Admittedly, the property was acquired by Jagdambawati Devi. Therefore, so far ownership is concerned, there is no dispute. The only dispute is that the property sold by Bageshwari to her daughter is nominal. From perusal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, this sale deed executed by her in favour of her daughter Bageshwari was not brought on record, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court has held that unless this sale deed is brought on record on the basis of any statement made in any other document, it cannot be held that the sale deed was nominal and sham transaction. Further, so far this submission is concerned, it relates to the appreciation of evidences. Both the courts below recorded the finding that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no.1 is valid, legal and genuine document. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel in my opinion, is a pure question of fact which cannot be interfered with in second
Patna High Court SA No.45 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 4
appellate jurisdiction.
(8) In the case of Hero Vinoth(Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545, the Apex Court held that an inference or appreciation of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a pure question of fact. In this case, the courts below after considering the contents of the documents and the sale deeds drawn an inference that the sale deed is not sham or illegal or void document. Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the decision of the Apex Court, this question is not a substantial question of law.
(9) So far the submission of the learned counsel that the plaintiff’s share has also been sold is concerned also, I find no force because admittedly, Jagdambawati Devi was the exclusive owner of the property. She sold the property to her daughter and, therefore, there is no question of share of the plaintiff arises. Moreover, this fact was never pleaded nor proved by the plaintiff. Since this question was not raised, the courts below have not decided this question.
(10) So far the submission of the learned counsel that the property has been jointly recorded in the consolidation khatiyan is concerned also, in my opinion, on this ground, the sale deed in question cannot be said to be nominal, illegal, void or
Patna High Court SA No.45 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 5
sham transaction.
(11) In the case of Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and others vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009)5 Supreme Court Cases 713, the Apex Court has held that a registered deed of sale carries presumption that the transaction was a genuine one. If execution of sale deed is proved, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the deed was not executed and it was a sham transaction. It may be mentioned here that same principles have been laid down subsequently by this court in the case of Sita Sharan Prasad v. Manorma Devi, 2012(2) BLJ 165 .
(12) So far the finding of the trial court that the suit is barred by law of limitation is concerned, it may be mentioned here that admittedly, the sale deeds in question executed in favour of the defendant-respondent no.1 is dated 17.02.1986. The trial court after considering the documentary evidences recorded a finding that the plaintiff had the knowledge about the execution and registration of the sale deed in the year 1986 itself. Therefore, in view of the decision of this court reported in 2012(2) BLJ 165, the limitation of 3 years in view of article 58/59 of the Limitation Act is applicable. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is also barred by law of limitation.
(13) Therefore, I find that no substantial question of
Patna High Court SA No.45 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 6
law is involved in this Second Appeal. Therefore, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Saurabh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts were justified in holding that the sale deeds were genuine and not nominal or sham transactions.
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation.
Whether there is a substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hero Vinoth(Minor) vs. SeshammalReferred¶16
(2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545
Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and others vs. Ramakant Eknath JadooReferred¶21
(2009)5 Supreme Court Cases 713
Sita Sharan Prasad v. Manorma DeviReferred¶21
Sita Sharan Prasad v. Manorma Devi, 2012(2) BLJ 165
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Madan Mohan Singh
Radha Devi
MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
