A title suit against a municipality did not require notice under Section 377 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act. The plaintiff's title remained limited to 0.98 acre, with the earlier transfer of one acre unchallenged. All four second appeals were dismissed and the appellate decree affirmed.
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.122 of 2002
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
SECOND APPEAL No. 123 of 2002
======================================================
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 2/40
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with SECOND APPEAL No. 139 of 2002
======================================================
Executive Officer, N.A.C. Rajgir, Now Special Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, Nalanda (N.A.C. Rajgir has been declared as Nagar Panchayat Rajgir vide notification no. 2651 dated 30.08.2001
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 3/40
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with SECOND APPEAL No. 140 of 2002
======================================================
Executive Officer, N.A.C. Rajgir, Now Special Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, Nalanda (N.A.C. Rajgir has been declared as Nagar Panchayat Rajgir vide notification no. 2651 dated 30.08.2001
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 4/40
Hassanpur, P.O. and P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda. At present residing at Bangali Tola, Makaurapur Rajgir, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : (In SECOND APPEAL No. 122 of 2002) For the Appellant/s : Mr. T.N. Maitin, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.S.Shabbar Hussain, Adv. For respondent no. 3 : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Adv., Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Adv., Mr. Anjani Kumar Adv., Ms. Sweta Rai, Adv. (In SECOND APPEAL No. 123 of 2002) For the Appellant/s : Mr. T.N. Maitin, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.S.Shabbar Hussain, Adv. For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Adv., Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Adv., Mr. Ravi Raj, Adv. (In SECOND APPEAL No. 139 of 2002) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Bhartee, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Adv., Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Adv., Mr. Shreyansh Goyal, Adv. (In SECOND APPEAL No. 140 of 2002) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Bhartee, Adv. For Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Adv., Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath, Adv., Ms. Sweta Raj, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-12-2023
Heard the parties.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
5/40
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 6/40
dated 17.03.1993, passed in T.S. No. 58 of 1985 by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
7/40
(i) Whether the notice under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act was at all essential when the Notified Area Committee and Municipality concern fully contested the suit as parties and never pressed their objections before the learned Trial Court on this point ?
(i) Whether Appellate Court erred in law in holding that plaintiff acquired title over only 98 decimals of C.S. Plot No. 5205 by relying upon Exhibit A-1, which is not a document of sale in the eye of law.
(ii) Whether learned Lower Court erred in law in declaring title of Intervenor over 1 acre of part of the suit land without any counter-claim for making declaration of his title over the same land.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
8/40
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 9/40
Shah Mujtaba have transferred the entire 1 acre 98 decimals of the land by two registered sale deeds dated 26.06.1982 to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff came in possession as owner and he is continuing in his possession. It is further case of the plaintiff that when the Intervenor/defendant filed his written statement, the plaintiff came to know that a forged document of sale by Syed Shah Mujtaba Hassan dated 05.08.1971 has been prepared in the name of Syed Shah Altaf Hassan and Syed Shah Equbal Hassan. It is further case of the plaintiff that after purchase plaintiff filed a petition before the Land Revenue Deputy Collector for mutating his name and accordingly on a verification report of L.R.D.C. the Sub Divisional Officer forwarded the petition of the plaintiff. It is contended that there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee. The Notified Area Committee was illegally interferring with the suit property. The present suit was filed seeking declaration of title and injunction.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 10/40
now Municipality and the Municipality is settling the said pokhar and the plaintiff has no title to suit property. The plea is also taken that the suit is not maintainable in view of non-service of notice under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. It is further contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the party namely the State of Bihar which was a necessary party and it is also bad for non-compliance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. The permission under Section 80 (2) C.P.C. has been obtained under mis-representation and concealment of actual facts.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 11/40
son and in the absence of absolute transfer the grandsons would not inherit anything ( being a Mehjob grand sons) and will be excluded from inheritance in presence of other two alive sons of the grandfather (propositus) Syed Shah Mujtaba Hassan and it is mentioned in the recital of the sale deed that the deed is being executed out of love and affection and to protect the interest of grandson and the consideration money has been forsaken (mafi Zarsaman). It is emphatically pleaded that in the said sale deed the other two sons of the grandfather are witnesses of the recital of the sale deed. Thus, the intervenor/ defendant, who are purchaser from the aforesaid grandsons filed written statement claiming 1 acre land which was acquired by their vendors from the rightful/admitted owner Syed Shah Mujtaba Hassan to the full knowledge of the other two sons, who are witnesses to the aforesaid sale deed dated 05.08.1971. Thus, the plaintiff claiming through his vendors could have acquired title to entire 1.98 acres of land from Syed Shah Mujtaba Hassan who had already sold 01 acre of land through sale deed dated 05.08.1971 and at the time of his death he was holding title of only 98 decimals of the land in plot no. 5205 only which could have been inherited by the vendors of the plaintiffs.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 12/40
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 13/40
register, which was not produced by the defendant nos. 1 and 2. The learned Trial Court further held that the intervenor/ defendant failed to establish his title and possession. The Notified Area Committee has got no right, title and interest in the suit property. It is further held that Mujtaba Hassan acquired right, title and interest over the disputed plot. The plaintiff has established that he had purchased the land from the legal heirs of Syed Mujtaba Hassan and the suit is not barred by law of limitation.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 14/40
party and Syed Shah Jahan, Syed Shah Alam, Syed Shah Altaf Hassan and Syed Equbal Hassan as the other party in this deed dated 15.08.1983, and deed of exchange all had admitted the deed of 1971 (Exhibit A-1), executed by Syed Shah Mujtaba Hassan and his wife in favour of Syed Altaf Alam and Syed Equbal Hassan. It is further held that the claim of plaintiff has been denied over 1 acre of the suit plot, whereas the claim of intervenor/defendant was admitted. All these exhibits are sufficient enough to show that the title with respect to 1 acre land in the suit plot passed on to the vendor of intervenor/defendant (sale deed dated 05.08.1971) and the document filed is of an unimpeachable character, which cannot be forged or manufactured. However, the claim of Municipality was rejected upholding the finding that the land never vested in the State of Bihar and the nature of land has changed as raiyati land and further that the plea regarding the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to be forged cannot be exhibited as they are certified copies. The learned Trial Court held that the suit to be not maintainable on the ground of want of notice under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. It has further held that the Notified Area Committee had no right to settle the suit plot of anyone.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 15/40
(I) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court committed error in law in entering into the merits of the case and deciding the appeals on merits after holding that the original suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act? The learned Appellate Court has held that one month prior notice is mandatory, which has not been complied with and so the suit of the plaintiff will fail on this score alone against the municipality as no notice under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act was served upon authority and the suit of the plaintiff was bad, which could not have been decreed.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 16/40
pleaded an oral evidence on this point. No issue was framed on this point. Plaintiff had no opportunity to lead any evidence on the point of service of notice under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. It is submitted that no notice is required to be served under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act in view of relief sought in this suit. The plaintiff only sought declaration of title over the suit land as a cloud was caste on his title. It is further submitted that in the suits no relief has been sought against any specific order or act on the Officers of Municipality. It is further contended that in all suits against Municipality, no notice is required to be given under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
17/40
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 18/40
given by the Trial Court. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported in A.I.R. 1995 SC 1607, S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) by Lrs.
And Ors. Vrs. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. , paragraph-5, wherein, it has been held that reasoning given by the Trial Court must be considered by the Lower Appellate Court.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 19/40
placed his reliance reported in A.I.R. 2002 SC 564 (Kewal Kishan
Vrs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.) .
(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in overlooking the evidences available on record and exhibits K to G/2 having been admitted in evidence by the Lower Appellate Court, vide its order dated 24-11-2000 under order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. could be completely overlooked and neglected by itself ?
(ii) Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court is sustainable on the point of possession and non vesting in N.AC without discussing the evidence which are available and having been admitted in evidence vide its order dated 24-11-2000 under order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C ?
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 20/40
(iii) Whether the Court below have not committed serious error of record and in law also ignoring the pleading of the plaintiff with regard to para 6 of its plaint with regard to road cess return filed in the year 1930 and having come to the conclusion that such an old document cannot be disbelieved ?
(iv) Whether the parties to the suit are free to lead evidence against their pleadings, and different evidence against pleading would not be fatal for the case ?
(v) Whether the ex-intermediary or the government are entitled to settle a Gair-Mazarua pond (Pokhar) to any individual ? (vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case certified copy of documents exhibited with objection be read in evidence?
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 21/40
1043 (Bihari Chowdhary and Anr. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.) as well as recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona and Anr. Vrs. Ramnath and Anr. , reported in 2014 (6) SCC 94 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at paragraphs 9 and 10 which are as under:-
“ 9. Along with the trial court and the appellate court, the High Court also failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and also overlooked the valuable interest and right of public at large to use the suit land which is a part of public street. Further, in absence of challenge to the notice of eviction issued by the appellant, it was not open to the trial court to decide the title merely because permanent injunction coupled with declaration of title was also sought for.
10. In view of our finding, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 11-4-2012 passed by the High Court in Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona v. Ramnath [Second Appeal No. 568 of 2009, decided on 11-4-2012 (MP)] as also the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and the trial court. It will be open to the appellant to proceed in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations.”
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 22/40
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 23/40
met it by calling for the original sale deed, which was on record in collateral proceedings, but there was no objection from the appellant. The sale deed dated 14.11.1944 was marked as Exhibit P/2 and it was exhibited to the record without objection. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted in this regard that some of the documents were exhibited but with the objection, but all these documents of the plaintiff were relied upon by both the Courts below. The entire Judgment of the Courts below are based upon the documents which were not proved as per the Evidence Act.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 24/40
(D.B.) , (Notified Area Committee Through the Vice Chairman, Notified Area Committee & Anr. Vrs. Shri Chhatrapal Singh & Anr.) paragraph-11 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Single Judge in S.A. No. 6 of 2006, decided on 12.05.2009, paragraph-10, wherein their Lordships have clearly held that from the reading of Section 377 of the Bihar And Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, it is manifest that provision provided protection to the Municipality and its Officials only in a suit for damage to torturous act and not to other suit including a suit for declaration.
“ 25. At this stage, we also direct our attention to the contention raised by Mr Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Municipality that the suit in OS No. 39 of 1993 was not maintainable, as the notice was issued under Section 80 CPC in suit OS No. 255 of 1984 could not be said to be sufficient notice for the
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
25/40
institution of the suit in OS No. 39 of 1993. We cannot agree with the said contention. The High Court of Karnataka in the second appeal had dismissed the contention on the ground that the notice issued in the suit OS No. 255 of 1984 can be said to be constructive notice. The High Court considered that the object of the section is the advancement of justice and securing of public good.
26. In our opinion, this issue does not arise at all, as a municipal council is not a public officer, and no notice is necessary when a suit is filed against a municipality. Thus, the question of sufficiency of notice under Section 80 CPC does not arise at all. Further, the issuance of notice under Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 also does not arise for the reason that the dispute between the parties in the suit in OS No. 39 of 1993 does not attract the above provision of the Act and therefore, we need not advert to and answer the above contention.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 26/40
Patna 212 (D.B.) , State of Bihar & Anr. Vrs. Smt. Panchratna Devi & Anr., this Court has held at paragraph-10, which is as
follows:-
“ 10. Coming to the merit of the case, the counsel for the appellant has attacked the deed of gift (Ext. 1) created in favour of the plaintiff by her husband defendant second party-respondents on the ground that it was a clever device to defraud the outstanding dues of the Government and as such it is hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The submission does not appeal to me. The certificate case was filed in the year 1955–56 whereas, the deed of gift was executed long before on 25-2-50. The certificatedebtor defendant second party was working as a Manager in Khalsa Motor Service. It has been pleaded on behalf of the appellants that as a Manager of Khalsa Motor Service, he had the knowledge that the Government issues might ultimately be realised from his immovable properties and he, therefore, made a farzi and sham transaction by creating such deed. By any stretch of imagination, it is hard to hold that as a Manager working in any motor concern would have thought in the year 1950 that some Government dues would fall on his head long after six years and would create a document to defeat the Government for payment of the dues. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contention.
having not pressed this objection seriously at the initial stage of the suit, the same will be deemed to have been waived and cannot
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 27/40
be permitted to be raised, more so, when there was no specific issue framed in the Trial Court regarding want of notice under Section 377 of the Bihar And Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, but the defendant Municipality never raised objection or tried to get the issue re-cast.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 28/40
amendment in relief challenging the deed dated 05.08.1971, Exhibit A-1 has been made till date by the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest. The vendors of the plaintiff, who transferred 1.98 acres of suit land to the plaintiff by two sale deeds dated 26.06.1982 are themselves witness to the sale deed of vendor of intervenor/ defendant dated 05.08.1971 (Exhibit A-1). It is submitted that the vendor of the plaintiff has no title to transfer the entire 1.98 acres of land out of which owners of the land had already transferred one acre land in the year 1971. Question of sale deed of the vendor of the intervenor is without consideration. The objection that the same is not valid sale deed in the eye of law is wholly unsustainable having regard to the intention of vendors, who transferred the said property out of love and affection to compensate the “Mehjoob” ( sons of predeceased son) grandsons. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court having not considered or discussed the effect of sale deed dated 05.08.1971, in presence of Exhibit A-1, entire 1.98 decimals of land transferred. Reliance has been placed on the decision reported in 2016 (2) SCC 200 , City Municipal Council Bhalki Vrs. Gurappa (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Ors., paragraph-31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“31. It is a settled position of law that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the onus is
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
29/40
upon the plaintiff to prove his title. Further, not only is the onus on the plaintiff, he must prove his title independently, and a decree in his favour cannot be awarded for the only reason that the defendant has not been able to prove his title, as held by this Court in Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri [ Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri , AIR 1965 SC 1506] as under: (AIR p. 1508, para 8)
“ 8 . … The plaintiff's suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property….” The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the more recent case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple [ R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple , (2003) 8 SCC 752] as under: (SCC p. 768, para 29)
“ 29 . In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored to him. … In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title.”
submitted that the intervenor/ defendant being not a party to the
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 30/40
suit, the Trial Court grossly erred in holding that intervenor sale deed is hit by lis pendense .
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 31/40
establish his title to the property, which cannot be established without avoiding the decree or an instrument which stands as an unsurmountable obstacle in his way which otherwise binds him though not a party, the plaintiff necessarily has to seek a declaration and have that decree, instrument or contract cancelled, set aside or rescinded, but no such relief has been claimed.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 32/40
sustainable. Firstly, because of the non-requirement of notice for the reason indicated above having regard to nature of the suit and secondly on the ground that while defending a decree there is no requirement to file any cross objection, when no part of the decree is sought to be assailed by the respondent and in view of the settled law after 1976 amendment of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. respondent without filing cross objection and challenging the finding recorded against him in the Judgment under appeal, there is no requirement to file any cross objection and the Court hearing the appeal can correct the wrong finding even in absence of cross objection. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in AIR. 2003 SC 1989 (Banarsi & Ors. Vrs. Ram Phal) as well as 2013 (2) PLJR 6 SC (Hardevinder Singh Vrs. Paramjit Singh) . Both the Courts have concurrently recorded as finding of fact holding that exhibits filed by the plaintiff are genuine and not forged, particularly when they are certified copies and some of them were in the custody of the State Government and thereby clearly disbelieved the bald plea of respondent Municipality that the Exhibits of plaintiffs are forged. The concurrent finding of the fact on the genuineness of exhibits the same cannot be permitted to be assailed in Second Appeal as the view taken by the Court below was one of the possible view and is not open to substitute by re-
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 33/40
appreciation of evidence. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in 2012 (7) SCC 288 (Vishwanath Agrawal Vrs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal) , paragraph-37. So far as the nature of land alleged to be pokhar based on C.S. khatian entry cannot be held good for all time to come and nature of lands always changes with the passage of time and for proving the certified copy of road cess Return (Exhibit-4) has been filed, wherein this suit property is shown to be raiyati land in 1930. The nature of land changes with passage of time. The learned counsel for the intervenor/ defendant has relied upon a decision reported in 2014 (3) PLJR 584 , Maya Devi & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. , this Court has held in paragraph-6, which reads as under:-
“ 6. The next thing is whether the nature of land being as aforesaid does thelaw permit change? In my view, State andits officials are still harbouring a misconception that once a land is recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam or such land, no settlement can be made by anyone at any point of time. The sooner this wrong impression is erased, the better it is because on this spacious plea, lot of damage is being done. It is well settled judicially that such lands can be settled. That being so, it cannot be said that as the lands were recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind, the settlements in respect thereof and the Jamabandi in respect thereof becomes suspect, or becomes illegal. There cannot be any such presumption or assumption. Those assumptions and presumptions are clearly misplaced. I can “here
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 34/40
usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandeshwari Prasad Narain Deo v. State of Bihar since reported in 1956 BUR 24 as also to the case of Laxman Sahai v. State of Bihar since reported in 1990 (1) BLJ 457.
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 35/40
decision reported in 2019 (1) BLJ 597 Smt. Shashi Kala Vrs. State of Bihar through Collector, Gaya & Anr.) .
“377. Notice of suits against
Commissioners:-
(1) No suit shall be brought against the Commissioners of any municipality, or any of their officers of any person acting under their direction, for anything done under this Act until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of such Commissioners, and also (if the suit is intended to be brought against any officer of the said Commissioners or any person acting under their direction) at the place of abode of the person against whom such suit is threatened to be brought, stating the cause of suit and the name and place of abode of the person who intends to bring the suit; and unless such notice be proved, the court shall find for the defendant;
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 36/40
(2) Every such action shall be commenced within three months next after the accrual of the cause of action, and not afterwards.
(3) If the Commissioners or their officers, or any person to whom any such notice is given, shall, before suit is brought, tender sufficient amends to the plaintiff, such plaintiff shall not recover.”
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 37/40
and for injunction restraining the Municipality from enforcing that order. In another decision of this Court reported in AIR 1936, Patna 323 (Kanhya Lal Missir Vrs. Mt. Hira Bibi) , it has been held that Section 377 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 like similarly Legislation in India is for the purpose of protecting a public authority from suits in respect of the Acts bona fide purporting to have been performed under the aegis of the lawful Act, in which in spite of the bona fide of the public authority, the law has been overstepped and a tort has been committed. It was held that this Section was not intended to apply to suits for the recovery of some money other than damages for tort which are lawfully recoverable either under the restitution or at common law in the case of Notified Area Committee to the Notified Area Committee Through The Vice Chairman, Notified Area Commitee & Anr. Vrs. Shri Chharapal Singh & Anr.)., reported in 2000 (1) BBCJ 488 .
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
38/40
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023
39/40
Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 40/40
05-08-1971 executed in favor of vendor of intervenor - defendant by his grandfather with regard to one acre of land of plot No. 5205, out of 1.98 acres had remained unchallenged and, therefore, the sale deed dated 05-08-1971, is not vitiated and that the intention of the grandfather of vendor (Mehjoob grandsons) of the intervenor -defendant was to transfer the title of the said land to “ Mehjoob grandson”, wherein, in order to protect the right, title and interest of the vendor of the intervenor -defendant, his vendor (grandfather) got his other sons ( vendors of plaintiff- appellant) as witness in the sale deed dated 05-01-1971 (Exhibit A/1).
(Khatim Reza, J)
pravinkumar/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | 01.12.2023 |
| Uploading Date | |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Was notice under Section 377 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 required for this title suit against the municipality?
Was the plaintiff entitled to title over the entire 1.98 acres despite the unchallenged earlier transfer of one acre?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lachminarayan Das Vrs. Chairman, Cuttak MunicipalityReferred¶115
A.I.R. 1936 Patna 322 (Lachminarayan Das Vrs. Chairman, Cuttak Municipality) · Who else cites this
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. Vrs. M/s. Motors and General Stores (P) Ltd.Referred¶120
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. Vrs. M/s. Motors and General Stores (P) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 200 · Who else cites this
Dhanbarti Koerin Vrs. Shyam Narain Mahton & Ors.Referred¶120
A.I.R. 2007 Patna 59 · Who else cites this
S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. Vrs. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.Referred¶123
A.I.R. 1995 SC 1607 · Who else cites this
Kewal Kishan Vrs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.Referred¶127
A.I.R. 2002 SC 564 · Who else cites this
Bihari Chowdhary and Anr. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶138
1043 (Bihari Chowdhary and Anr. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.)
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona and Anr. Vrs. Ramnath and Anr.Distinguished¶207
2014 (6) SCC 394, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona (supra) · Who else cites this
Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Punjab and Ors.Referred¶142
A.I.R. 2011 SC 1123 · Who else cites this
Smt. Dayamathi Bai Vrs. Sri K.N. ShaffiReferred¶143
Smt. Dayamathi Bai Vrs. Sri K.N. Shaffi (Appeal (Civil) No. 2434 of 2000)
S.A. No. 6 of 2006, decided on 12.05.2009Referred¶148
City Municipal Council Bhalki Vrs. Gurappa (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Ors.Relied on¶207
2016 (2) SCC 200 · Who else cites this
Subal Chandra Nath Saha & Ors. Vrs. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh & Ors.Relied on¶210
A.I.R. 1964 SC 1300 (Subal Chandra Nath Saha & Ors. Vrs. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh & Ors.). · Who else cites this
State of Bihar & Anr. Vrs. Smt. Panchratna Devi & Anr.Referred¶157
State of Bihar & Anr. Vrs. Smt. Panchratna Devi & Anr.,
Radhika Devi Vrs. Bajrangi Singh & Ors.Referred¶178
A.I.R. 1996 SC 2358 (Radhika Devi Vrs. Bajrangi Singh & Ors.) · Who else cites this
Sita Sharan Prasad Vrs. Manorma DeviReferred¶178
2012 (2) PLJR 190 (Sita Sharan Prasad Vrs. Manorma Devi)
Md. Noorul Hoda Vrs. Bibi Raifunnisa & Ors.Referred¶178
1996 (7) SCC 767 (Md. Noorul Hoda Vrs. Bibi Raifunnisa & Ors.) · Who else cites this
Banarsi & Ors. Vrs. Ram PhalReferred¶184
AIR. 2003 SC 1989 (Banarsi & Ors. Vrs. Ram Phal) · Who else cites this
Hardevinder Singh Vrs. Paramjit SinghReferred¶184
2013 (2) PLJR 6 SC (Hardevinder Singh Vrs. Paramjit Singh)
Vishwanath Agrawal Vrs. Sarla Vishwanath AgrawalReferred¶186
2012 (7) SCC 288 (Vishwanath Agrawal Vrs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal) · Who else cites this
Maya Devi & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶186
2014 (3) PLJR 584
Yadunandan Singh Vrs. State of BiharReferred¶190
2016 (3) PLJR 237 (Yadunandan Singh Vrs. State of Bihar)
Smt. Shashi Kala Vrs. State of Bihar through Collector, Gaya & Anr.Referred¶192
2019 (1) BLJ 597 Smt. Shashi Kala Vrs. State of Bihar through Collector, Gaya & Anr.)
Kanhya Lal Missir Vrs. Mt. Hira BibiRelied on¶203
AIR 1936, Patna 323 (Kanhya Lal Missir Vrs. Mt. Hira Bibi) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Pari Devi
Arvind Prasad
Renu Kumari
Executive Officer Notified Area Committee, Rajgir, Nalanda
The Chairman, Notified Area Committee, represented through S.D.O. Biharsharif, Rajgir, Nalanda
Md. Shakil Hassan
Khatim Reza
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
