In a second appeal concerning a title dispute over agricultural land, the Patna High Court held that the lower appellate court's finding regarding the source of the land's purchase was not perverse. With no substantial question of law involved, the appeal was dismissed.
None. The second appeal was disposed of without admission.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.118 of 2005
=========================================== 1.Most.Sugiya Devi wife of Late Govind Yadav 2. Rangi Yadav 3. Besar Yadav 4. Shambhu Yadav 5. Heman Yadav, all sons of Govind Yadav
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
2 / 10
appeal has been placed before me for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
3 / 10
and Keerath Gope. Roop Lal and Keerath Gope died issueless. Buniyad Gope died leaving behind his only son Govind Yadav, the original plaintiff. Jeetan Gope died leaving behind his son Baso Gope. It was pleaded that initially Khatiyan was prepared in the name of all four sons of Gopal Gope. However, in course of time Keerath Gope separated from all his brothers. Three brothers, namely, Jeetan Gope, Buniyad Gope and Roop Lal Gope purchased from their own savings the suit land admeasuring 5 acre 77 decimals at Mauza Taraun after Keerath separated himself from joint family. It was contended that immediately after survey, Keerath and Rooplal died unmarried and issueless and, therefore, the rest two brothers Jeetan and Buniyad came in exclusive possession over the suit land. The further plea before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellant was that after the death of Jeetan and Buniyad the plaintiff, namely, Govind and Baso and his sons, namely, Bharat Yadav and Lakhan Yadav came in possession over the suit land. Further plea was that
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
4 / 10
Jeetan and Buniyad after coming into exclusive possession over the lands were cultivating the lands, according to their share and they also sold some land through registered sale-deeds and the vendees were in possession over such part of the sold land.
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
5 / 10
between rest three brothers having 1/3rd share each. Keerath’s wife died during his life time and as he was issueless he depended on the family of Baso Yadav for serving him variously. They alleged that nearly 52 to 53 years ago Buniyad Gope and his father Govind Yadav murdered Baso Yadav, the father of respondent nos. 2 and 3. For the reason that Keerath was pleased with the service of Dhaniya Devi, wife of Baso Yadav, he executed sale deed in her favour of his 1/3rd share of the suit land along with other lands. This is how Dhania Devi came in possession over 2/3rd share of the suit land and receipt of 1 acre and 92 decimal were issued in the name of Dhania Devi. Dhania died in the year 1989, whereafter her sons,namely, Lakhan Yadav and Bharat Yadav came in possession over it. They were, therefore, impleaded as party defendants before the Courts below and are respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the present second appeal.
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
6 / 10
follows:-
“V. Whether the suit land of Khata no. 356 was purchased by three brothers, namely, Jeetan, Buniyad and Rooplal from their own earnings in the state of separation from Keerath Yadav?
VI. Whether sale deed executed in favour of Dhaniya was valid and she came into possession over the suit land after paying the consideration money?
IX. Whether there was partition of the suit land among Jeetan, Buniyad and Keerat merely 60-62 years ago in Khata nos. 78,79 and 356 and all the brothers got 1/3rd share?”
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
7 / 10
the suit land was purchased by Jeetan, Buniyad and Rooplal and not by Gopal Gope. He, accordingly, held that Keerath had no right title and interest over the said property and execution of sale as regards the said property in favour of Dhania was invalid.
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
8 / 10
after the death of their father Gopal. He, therefore, held that Keerath was entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit land. Learned first Appellate Court allowed the appeal recording that the entries made in the revenue records cannot be decisive for determination of title over plot of land. Having held so, learned first appellate Court, on the basis of evidence available on record, held that keerath Gope valid right to transfer his share in favour of Dhania wife of Baso Gope and the mother of defendants/respondents Lakhan Yadav and Bharat Yadav.
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
9 / 10
objection having been raised by Keerath on the entries made in the Khatiyan, it could be presumed that suit land was purchased by Jeetan, Buniyad and Rooplal Yadav, on the face of it, is falacious. This aspect has to be seen in the background, which has also been taken note of by the learned trial Court, that no document showing purchase of the suit land by three brothers, namely, Jeetan, Buniyad and Ropplal yadav was produced as evidence.
Patna High Court SA No.118 of 2005 (13) dt.18-02-2013
10 / 10
not been able to point out that the appeal involves any substantial questions of law. In such view of the matter, the appeal does not deserve admission and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit land was self-acquired property of three brothers or ancestral property of the common ancestor.
Whether the executable title of the appellant's predecessor was defeated by the presumption arising from revenue records.
1 Most Sugiya Devi and others
1 Sikandar Yadav and others
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
