Dismissed

Bhola Yadav v. Mathura Lyadav and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jul 2014SA/488/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal in a property dispute regarding title and succession rights. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding lower courts' findings that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim of inheritance by survivorship or that the defendants were the legal heirs. Evidence on grounds of survivorship was deemed unreliable.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed; the impugned judgment and decree are affirmed.

Bhola Yadav Vs Mathura Lyadav and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.488 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Bhola Yadav son of Late Nand Keshwar Yadav, resident of village Kelhanpur, P.S. Bihata, Patna

¶3

Plaintiff-Appellant- Appellant Versus

¶4

Mathura Yadav son of Late Harakh Yadav

¶5

Sant Lal Yadav son of Late Sakaldeep Yadav

¶6

Mostt. Rajmani Kuer wife of Late Rajayan Yadav

¶7

Vikas Kumar

¶8

Janki Kumar, sons of Late Rajayan Yadav

¶9

Anshu Kumari D/o Late Rajayan Yadav

¶10

Parma Yadav

¶11

Sheshan Yadav sons of Mathura Yadav

¶12

Niranjan Yadav son of Mathura Yadav

¶13

Bijendra Yadav son of Sant Lal Yadav

¶14

Jogendra Yadav

¶15

Mahendra Yadav sons of Sant Lal Yadav

¶16

Ramdeo Yadav

¶17

Tejan Yadav Yadav alias Sudheshwar Yadav

¶18

Balram Yadav all sons of late Nandkeshwar Yadav

¶19

Haldhar Yadav

¶20

Ramadhar Yadav sons of Ramdeo Yadav

¶21

Aditya Yadav alias Sadhu Yadav son of Tejan Yadav @ Sudheshwar Yadav

¶22

Raj Kumar Yadav son of Balram Yadav, all residents of villageKelhanpur, P.S. Bihta, P.O. Lai, Patna

¶23

Deo Patia Devi wife of Late Sri Bhagwan resident of village-Maula, P.S. Maner,P.O. Sahpur, Patna

¶24

Sharaswati Devi Wife of Kameshwar Yadav, resident of village Gulamichak,P.S. Bikram, P.O. Bikram, Patna

¶25

Ram Binay Yadav

¶26

Suresh Yadav

¶27

Ram Sagar Yadav

¶28

Juneshwar Yadav

¶29

Ajit Yadav @ Bir Bahadur, all sons of Bhola Yadav sl. Nos. 22 to 26 all sons of Sri Bhola Yadav and all residents of village Kelhanapur, P.S. Bihta, P.O. Lai District Patna

¶30

.... ...Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents 2^nd set Respondents

¶31

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶32

Patna High Court SA No.488 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2014

¶33

2 / 7

¶34

The plaintiff being the appellant has filed the present appeal dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-II, Danapur, Patna in T.A. No.20 of 2009 whereby the appeal was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 07.02.2009 and 09.02.2009, respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Danapur in T.S. No.41 of 1993 was affirmed.

¶35

4 17-07-2014

¶36

On perusal of the pleadings on record it appears that both the parties admitted that the disputed land covered by schedule-I of the plaint originally belonged to Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope. Ext. 1 and Ext. E, both survey khatiyan of plot no.106 have been filed in this regard by the parties.

¶37

The case of the plaintiffs is that Ram Khelawan Gope had two sons namely Balgovind Gope and Radhey Gope. Radhey Gope had two sons, namely Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope. On this point, the case of the defendants is that Balgovind and Radhey Gope were not the sons of Ram Khelawan Gope. Radhey Gope had two sons namely Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope and one sister namely Sukhiya Devi. The plaintiffs, however, in the plaint stated that Sukhiya Devi was not the daughter of Radhey Gope rather she was the daughter of Jitlal Gope. Both parties are in agreement that Haricharan Gope and Raman Gope

¶38

Patna High Court SA No.488 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2014

¶39

3 / 7

¶40

died unmarried. Both of them died during the lifetime of their father Radhey Gope. The case of the plaintiffs is that Radhey Gope lived with Ramdhani Gope and as such the legal heirs of Ramdhani Gope namely Beradar Gope and his descendents came in possession over the disputed land by the rule of survivorship. On this point, the case of the defendants is that after the death of Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope their sister namely Sukhiya Devi became the legal heir of Radhey Gope and came in possession of the disputed land. Sukhiya Devi was married with Deo Narayan Rawat and while in need of money she sold the entire disputed land along with her sons to defendant no.1(Mathura Gope) vide sale deed dated 28.11.1953 (Ext. C). The plaintiff(s) filed the suit for declaring his right, title and interest over the schedule-1 land and to declare the order passed dated 29.01.1991 passed under section 145 Cr. P.C. as wholly unsustainable. The plaintiff(s) also prayed for injunction against defendant(s). The learned trial court appreciating the rival claim(s) of the parties framed diverse issues and permitted the parties to lead evidence. The learned trial court appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the plaintiff(s) had failed to prove that he had valid right, title and interest over the disputed land and accordingly the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby

¶41

Patna High Court SA No.488 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2014

¶42

4 / 7

¶43

the plaintiffs filed appeal vide T.A. No. 20 of 2009. The learned lower appellate court appreciating the submissions of the appellants formulated points in paragraph 9 of the judgment under appeal and thereafter proceeded to appraise the evidence available on record led by both the parties. Point nos. A and B being the core points framed by the learned lower appellate court are set out hereinbelow:-

¶44

“(A) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants have right, title, interest and possession over the disputed land fully mentioned in schedule-I of the plaint?

¶45

(B) Whether the order dated 21.2.1991 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Danapur, in a proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P.C. is valid and the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to withdraw the auction money of the crops amounting to Rs.24,000/- which was deposited in the Govt. Treasury in course of the said proceeding?

¶46

While considering those points the appellate court once again appraised the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and concluded that the plaintiff was not the direct descendents of Balgovind, rather he was stranger to or relative

¶47

Patna High Court SA No.488 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2014

¶48

5 / 7

¶49

of the family of Radhey Gope. The Genealogical table given by the plaintiffs was held incorrect and the case put up by the plaintiffs that they got the disputed land by survivorship was not found true/proved. The specific case put up by the plaintiff having not found substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence, the learned appellate court in paragraph 14 held as under:-

¶50

“Court cannot make a third case. When plaintiffs fail that they are the descendents of Ramdhani Gope and by the rule of Survivorship they inherited the property(disputed land) of Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope, then only one case remains before the court that Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope had sister, named as Sukhiya Devi who was married with Deo Narain Raut and since Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope died as unmarried and issueless, so their property came in possession of Sukhiya Devi, being the only legal heir of Raman Gope and Haricharan Gope sons of Radhey Gope and above all, by any oral or documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have failed to establish and prove that Sukhiya Devi is the daughter of Jitlal Yadav.”

¶51

The appellate court thereafter turned to examine the

¶52

Patna High Court SA No.488 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2014

¶53

6 / 7

¶54

claim of the plaintiff that he perfected title by adverse possession and held that if any one wants declaration of right, title and interest over the disputed land as a bonafide owner then he cannot take a plea that he perfected his right, title and interest by way of adverse possession. The claim raised in this regard was thus negated by the learned lower appellate court as was done by the learned trial court. Having held so, the appeal was dismissed as the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his case. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. The findings of fact on core issues recorded by the learned trial court having been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence on record do not require interference under section 100 of CPC unless they are shown to be wholly perverse and/or blatantly illegal. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Viddyadhar vs. Manik Rao, (1999) 3 SCC 573 and the case of Abdul Rahim vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2007) 14 SCC 138 wherein it has been propounded that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the findings of fact unless it is shown that they are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. Simply because another view based on evidence on record is possible the

¶55

Patna High Court SA No.488 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2014

¶56

7 / 7

¶57

High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention(s) made by the counsel that the findings of the court below on those core issues are not sustainable in law are not supported from the judgment under appeal.

¶58

In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶60

HR/-

¶61

Bhola Yadav v. Mathura Lyadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Yadav v. Mathura Lyadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramayan Ram and Ors. Vs Vidya Nand Pd. and Ors.

Kabutari Devi and Ors. Vs Paras Prasad and Anr.

Indradeo Sah Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs Bachchi Devi and Ors.

Sheo Mangal Sharma Vs Sipahi Singh and Ors.

Arun Kumar and Anr. Vs Raghunandan Prasad Mandal and Ors.