Dismissed

Devendra Sao Sonar v. Rameshwar Sao Sonar

Patna HC13 May 2013SA/82/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a second appeal in an eviction suit. Upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, the Court held no substantial question of law was involved as the findings were supported by evidence and not perverse.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed without a substantial question of law being admitted.

Devendra Sao Sonar Vs Rameshwar Sao Sonar — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.82 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Devendra Sao Sonar son of Late Rameshwar Sao Sonar, resident of Samachak Barbigha, P.S. Barbigha, District-Sheikhpura .... .... Appellant Versus Rameshwar Sao Sonar son of Late Chamari Sao Sonar, resident of Samachak Barbigha, P.S. Barbigha, District-Sheikhpura. .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Brajnandan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶3

ORAL ORDER

¶4

9 13-05-2013 The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court and is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2012 and 25.02.2012 respectively passed in Munsifi Eviction Appeal No. 14 of 2008 by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track CourtIV, Sheikhpura, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2008 passed in Eviction suit No. 1 of 2001 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shiekhpura.

¶5

Learned trial Court vide said judgment and decree dated 27.11.2008 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff with an order to vacate the suit land within two months from the date of the order and also pay the arrears of rent from March, 2000 to December, 2000. The plaintiff was given liberty to get the suit land vacated if, the defendant failed to vacate the premises or to

¶6

Patna High Court SA No.82 of 2012 (9) dt.13-05-2013 2/8

¶7

pay the arrears of rent, through process of Court.

¶8

Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff before the Courts below was that the disputed land as shown in schedule-1 of the plaint was purchased by him on 08.07.1986 and had been in his possession and occupation. There was a house, according to the plaintiff, over the suit land over 1 ½ decimal of area. On a request made by the defendant, said house was let out to him on condition of payment of rent of rupees fifty per month. The defendant used to pay the rent regularly. Subsequently, as the plaintiff wanted the suit premises, in view of his personal necessity and in order to do repair work, he asked the defendant to vacate the house in March, 2000. Thereafter, the defendant is said to have stopped payment of rent to the plaintiff. Differences arose between them leading to institution of suit.

¶9

The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint, disputing the plaintiff’s title over the suit property. It was pleaded on behalf of the defendant that the eviction suit was filed in the garb of a title suit in order to avoid payment of Court fee. The defendant questioned the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶10

The defendant further contended that disputed land

¶11

Patna High Court SA No.82 of 2012 (9) dt.13-05-2013 3/8

¶12

measuring 3½ decimal belonged to Bhagwan Das Tamoli who had sold the property to the family of the defendant. The plaintiff being the Karta of the joint Hindu family, purchased the said land in the name of his elder son Saryug Prasad Sonar from the income of joint family. The defendant further claimed that father of the plaintiff and defendant both came in joint possession of land. He also pleaded that father of defendant Rameswar Sao Sonar died, living behind three sons, namely, Devendra Prasad Sao (defendant), Saryug Sao and Late Indradeo Sao and after the death of Rameswar Sao sonar, the defendant came in joint possession of the above property alongwith his other two brothers. The defendant tried to make out a specific case that ½ decimal share at the north side was given to the defendant over which the defendant was in possession.

¶13

On the basis of rival pleadings, learned trial Court framed altogether ten issues including issues No. (II), (IV), (V), (VII), (VIII) and (IX) which are as follows:-

¶14

“(II) Whether the plaintiff is landlord and defendant is

¶15

tenant of suit property?

¶16

(IV) Whether the defendant is tenant under the landlordship of plaintiff and paid Rs. 50/- per month as rent to the plaintiff?

¶17

Patna High Court SA No.82 of 2012 (9) dt.13-05-2013 4/8

¶18

(V) Whether the plaintiff has valid right, title and possession over the suit property?

¶19

(VII) Whether the plaintiff has personal necessity over the suit property?

¶20

(VIII) Whether the defendant is in default in payment of rent and arrears of rent to the plaintiff?

¶21

(IX) Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit property?”

¶22

After framing of issues, the plaintiff adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his case as would appear from paragraph No. 4 of the judgment of learned trial Court. The defendant, however, did not bring on record any evidence nor any document was filed on his behalf. It appears that the defendant failed to examine even himself as a witness in support of his case.

¶23

Learned trial Court on the basis of analysis of evidence on record by the plaintiff came to a finding in paragraph-8 that the plaintiff proved himself to be the landlord of the disputed house. Further, adjudicating upon the issue of personal necessity of the plaintiff, learned Trial Court accepted the evidence of plaintiff witnesses and came to a finding that the plaintiff required the land for the personal necessity which fact could not be controverted by the defendant. Learned Trial Court held that the defendant

¶24

Patna High Court SA No.82 of 2012 (9) dt.13-05-2013 5/8

¶25

completely failed to establish his case that land was purchased by the family of the plaintiff from the joint family income and the suit property was allotted to his share in a family partition. Having held so, learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2008.

¶26

The defendant preferred appeal vide Munsifi Eviction Appeal No. 14/2008. From the judgment of the first appellate Court it appears that the learned first appellate court considered both oral and documentary evidence brought on record on behalf of the plaintiff in detail. On the basis of analysis and appraisal of evidence on record learned first appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and came to a conclusive finding that the oral and documentary evidence substantiated that the plaintiff / respondent did have right, title and possession over the suit property. It also came to a finding, concurring with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Trial Court, that the defendant / appellant failed to prove that the suit property was purchased by the family of the defendant from joint family fund.

¶27

In view of the above findings, learned trial Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 14.02.2012 which is under challenge in the present second appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

¶29

Patna High Court SA No.82 of 2012 (9) dt.13-05-2013 6/8

¶30

has strenuously submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper perspective. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court misread and misunderstood the respective cases of the appellant and respondent and thus came to an erroneous finding.

¶31

It has further been submitted that the Trial Court failed to frame distinct issues as regards acquisition of disputed land by the family of the defendant from joint nucleus or separate nucleus to the parties to the suit.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present second appeal involves a substantial question of law that whether a suit for eviction, right, title and interest of a party could be decided even when a regular title suit is pending for decision of right, title between the same parties before learned competent Court?

¶33

On perusal of the judgment of the Courts below, however, I find that the main dispute which required adjudication in the present case was as to whether there existed between the plaintiff and the defendant, a relationship of landlord and tenant. There is no dispute over the fact that after framing of the issues, the plaintiff brought on record both oral and documentary evidences in support of his case that there was a relationship of

¶34

Patna High Court SA No.82 of 2012 (9) dt.13-05-2013 7/8

¶35

landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant, while claiming his title over the suit property, did not adduce any evidence oral or documentary in support of his case nor could negative the plea of the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court and the first appellate Court on the basis of appreciation and perusal of evidence on record, which have been discussed in the respective judgments came to a separate finding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶36

It was strenuously submitted on behalf of the appellant that both the Courts below misread and misunderstood not only the pleadings of the respective parties but also the documentary evidence adduced in course of trial.

¶37

After having perused the judgment of the Courts below, I am of the view that the only dispute which the present lis involved was as to whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant or not? This is primarily a question of fact.

¶38

The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Courts below need no interference in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless it is shown to be perverse, i.e. contrary to any evidence available on record or without any

¶39

Patna High Court SA No.82 of 2012 (9) dt.13-05-2013 8/8

¶40

evidence so available on record. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court as well as this Court that concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, on the basis of appreciation of evidence are binding on this Court. I am of the view that the present second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law which merits admission and is accordingly dismissed.

¶41

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶42

Saif/-

Devendra Sao Sonar v. Rameshwar Sao Sonar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Sao Sonar v. Rameshwar Sao Sonar

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

Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Shital Prasad Ram

Chamru Yadav Vs Tanuk Lal Yadav and Ors.

Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors. Vs Sri Indrajit Singh and Ors.

Parmanand Trivedi and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lallan Bhagat Vs Jamadar Bhagar and Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Sinha and Ors. Vs Smt. Radhika Kuar