Ramchabila Ram & Ors. v. Guru Charan Ram & Ors.

-- Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents. For the appellants For the respondents ---- : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate. M/s Sunil Kumar Dubey & Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocates. ----

13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- respondents-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below.

3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.228 of 1991 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-respondents for declaration that the proforma defendant had no right to execute sale deed with respect to the suit land in favour of the principal defendants as the father of the proforma defendant had already gifted the said land to the Bhudan Yagna Committee and the said Committee had settled the same with the husband of plaintiff no.1. A - 2 - further relief was sought for eviction of the defendants from the suit land and also for declaration that order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Case No.2518 of 1990 dated

08.03.1994 was illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs.

4. The said suit was dismissed on contest by learned Munsif, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.60 of 1999 (67/2005) which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court V, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated

12.10.2006 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs.

5. After considering the arguments of the parties and the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that Danpatra dated 03.03.1954 (Ext.- 1) was executed by father of the proforma defendant in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Committee, whereafter notices dated 14.07.1958 (Ext.-2 series) were issued by the Revenue Officer to the said donar Sita Singh with regard to the publication which conclusively proved the donation of the suit land by Sita Singh, father of Ramadhar Singh, in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Committee and the said donation was confirmed by the order of the Deputy Collector Land - 3 - Reforms dated 13.08.1958 (Ext.-3/b) as there was no objection raised by any one against the same. In view of the said circumstances, the learned court of appeal below rightly came to the conclusion that the proforma defendant was left with no right, title or interest in the suit properties which they could transfer to the principal defendants.

6. So far the claim of the plaintiffs is concerned, the list of land distribution by Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee clearly shows that Rajdeo Ram, the father of plaintiff no.2, was the donee by virtue of his original certificate no.39956. This aspect of the matter has been fully proved by other evidence of the plaintiffs. So far the objection of the defendants that Danpatra was dated 03.03.1954, the date on which Bhoodan Act came into force and hence the Danpatra required registration is concerned, it is quite apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that Danpatra was clearly in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Committee and according to the provisions of the Act, it did not require any registration.

7. Learned court of appeal below further found that the defendants had based their claim on Ext.-A which is a registered sale deed in favour of the principal defendants executed by Ramadhar Singh son of Sita Singh, who had already donated the land to Bhoodan Yagna Committee in the year 1954 and hence Ramadhar Singh had no right, title and interest left in the suit property which he could sell in favour of the principal defendants and the said principal defendants merely got a bag of wind. The learned court of appeal - 4 - below also arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of evidence that the plaintiffs were all along in possession of the suit land by virtue of their settlement by Bhoodan Yagna Committee, but after obtaining an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs were entitled to restoration of possession of the suit land.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Section 22 of the Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, but the said provision merely provided that Revenue Officer suo motu on his own information or on an application of the Committee may eject the persons concerned from such land, but from a bare perusal of the said provision it does not appear that there is any bar created by the provisions of the Act against the Civil Court in entertaining such suit. Hence, in absence of any bar to the filing of the suit in this regard, the title suit filed by the plaintiffs for reliefs claimed therein is clearly not barred.

9. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)