Dismissed

Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Sri Ram Prasanna Singh

Patna HC12 Mar 2013C.R./1829/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a civil revision pending an appeal against a trial court's refusal to dismiss a title suit for limitation. The revisionist argued the suit was barred under the Limitation Act, but the High Court upheld the trial court's view that evidence was needed to resolve conflicting contentions regarding the gift deed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision No.1829 of 2006 was dismissed.

Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs Sri Ram Prasanna Singh — Succession and Inheritance | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Revision No.1829 of 2006

¶3

=========================================================== Raghwendra Sharan Singh son of Sri Ram Prasanna Singh, resident of village Gangahara, P.S. Danapur, District Patna, at present residing at Sati Chowra(near Danapur Sub-Registry office) P.S. Danapur, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Sri Ram Prasanna Singh, son of Late Janki Sharan Singh (however Plaintiff’s own arsertion made in the plaint, that he is the son of Late Shaligram Singh) resident of village Ganghara, P.S. Danapur, Patna .... .... Opposite Party =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivaji Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Siddheshwari Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-03-2013

¶4

Heard Mr. Shivaji Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Siddheshwari Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 28.8.2006 passed by learned Munsif, Danapur in Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 whereby the learned trial Court while considering the objection raised by the petitioner who is the defendant in the Court below under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 14 Rule 2 thereof, has been pleased to reject the same inter alia on grounds that the matter requires consideration at the stage of trial.

¶6

The suit in question giving rise to Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 has been filed by the plaintiff-sole opposite party for the following reliefs:

¶7

“11. That the plaintiff prays for the following reliefs;

¶8

Patna High Court C.R. No.1829 of 2006 dt.12-03-2013

¶9

2 / 4

¶10

(a) That on adjudication of the facts stated above it be declared that defendant acquired no title and possession on the basis of the said showy deed of gift dated 6.3.1981 and plaintiff has got title and possession in the said property.

¶11

(b)
(c)
(d)

¶12

(b) That it be declared that said showy deed of gift dated 6.3.81 is not binding on the plaintiff.

¶13

(c) That the possession of the plaintiff be confirmed over the suit property and in case if he be found out of its possession, a decree for recovery of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

¶14

(d) That the defendant be restrained by an order of adinterim injunction from transferring or encumbering or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

¶15

(e) That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant.

¶16

(f) Any other relief or reliefs which deems fit and proper be awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant.”

¶17

The plaintiff happens to be the own father of the petitioner.

¶18

It is the case of the plaintiff that for the purpose of securing loan, the deed of gift in question dated 6.3.1981 was executed along with some others in favour of the defendant but in effect no title was to pass on the said defendant and which is manifest from the recitals of the deed. It is further the case of the plaintiff that for the first time he became aware of the fact that this defendant was trying to take benefit of the gift deed, is when he received the copy of the plaint in Title Suit No. 203 of 2001 filed by this defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that following the receipt of notice in the said partition suit he became aware of the design of the defendant and he has chosen to file the suit in question.

¶19

Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions underlying Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the

¶20

Patna High Court C.R. No.1829 of 2006 dt.12-03-2013

¶21

3 / 4

¶22

suit at best could have been filed within three years of the execution thereof and not thereafter. It is further the case of the defendantpetitioner as advanced by Mr. Singh, that the explanation given by the plaintiff in moving the Court after receipt of the plaint in Title Suit No. 203 of 2001 cannot out weigh the limitation and the suit is hopelessly barred, and the trial Court should have held as such.

¶23

Mr. Singh in support of his submission has relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court:

¶24

(a) (2005) 5 SCC 548

¶25

(b) (1977) 4 SCC 467.

¶26

It is on the strength of the aforesaid judgments that it has been argued that continuation of the proceedings would be an undue harassment to the defendant, who is admittedly now the title holder of the property in question by virtue of the gift deed.

¶27

The position has been contested by Mr. Siddheshwar Narayan Singh, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff- opposite party.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

¶29

There is no gainsaying that going by the date of the gift deed the plaintiff apparently seems to have moved after considerable delay and going strictly by the provisions underlying Article 59 the suit ought to be dismissed as hopelessly barred. The situation is not as plain and simple as such rather it is the specific case of the plaintiff that despite the deed,

¶30

Patna High Court C.R. No.1829 of 2006 dt.12-03-2013

¶31

4 / 4

¶32

no title did flow in the defendant and that specific assertions to this effect can be found in the gift deed itself. It is further the case of the plaintiff that as the gift deed was in the nature of a paper transaction, there was no reason for him to meddle with the same. It is the plaintiff’s contention that the design of the defendant was discovered by him only when he received the plaint in Title Suit No. 203 of 2001 and which has given him a cause of action.

¶33

It is in consideration of these circumstances that the learned trial Court by the order impugned has rejected the objection raised by the defendant-petitioner assigning specific grounds that the rival contentions would require each of the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claim and that the matter cannot be resolved at the stage of O 7 R 11 read with Order 14 Rule 2 without entering into the evidence. The opinion expressed by the Court below neither suffers from jurisdictional error or there is any legal infirmity nor the finding is contrary to the judicial pronouncement rather it is upon appreciation of the matter in issue and requires no interference.

¶34

This civil revision application is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

Bibhash/-

¶36

(Jyoti Saran, J)

Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Sri Ram Prasanna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Sri Ram Prasanna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Asha Devi and Ors. Vs Shyam Sunder Tibrewal

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs Sajjan Kumar Bajoria

Biharsharif Regional Handlooms Vs Kadirganj Pacholiya Pri.Weaver

Md.Ibrahim Vs Md.Mustaque Alam and Anr.

Yogendra Rai and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Kumari @ Lngle Vs Arwind Kumar Singh and Ors.