Ramchandra Singh v. Satish Kumar Singh & Ors.

3. The plaintiff-respondents filed T.S. No. 209 of Patna High Court SA No.486 of 2010 (8) dt.11-01-2013 2 1988 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession. As the factual matrix of the case would unveil, the suit land is 12 decimal of chak no. 638 which has been admittedly carved out of C.S. plot no. 650 and

651. The title of Rudal Singh over the suit land is not dispute. Rudal Singh had a son Tek Narain Singh. The plaintiffs case is that Rudal Singh executed a registered gift deed in favour of Visheshwar Singh on 18.10.1921 with regard to the suit land and put him in possession over the same. After the death of Visheshwar Singh, his son Ramashish Singh inherited the gifted property and continued in possession. The plaintiffs claim title and possession over the suit land on the basis of the sale deed dated

09.01.1978 executed by Ramashish Singh in favour of Dulhin Ratna Singh who was predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. It is also case of the plaintiffs that during the consolidation proceeding, the records of rights for the suit land came to be wrongly prepared in the name of Tek Narain Singh who intended to execute a relinquishment deed in favour of Ramashish Singh but on wrong advice executed a gift deed dated 15.11.1973 in his favour. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that by mistake of scribe, chak no. 819 has been mentioned in the gift deed dated 15.11.1973 in place of chak no. 638. Patna High Court SA No.486 of 2010 (8) dt.11-01-2013 3

4. The defendant no. 1 on the other hand, has challenged the validity of two gift deeds with the assertion that the same remained inoperative document and no possession was delivered. It is the case of the defendant no. 1 that Tek Narain Singh made an oral gift of the suit land in his favour and later on recognized the said oral gift by executing a Panchanama on

14.12.1973 in his favour. On this basis the defendant no. 1 has claimed to be in possession of the suit land.

5. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the finding that the two gift deeds executed by Rudal Singh and Tek Narayan Singh were not acted upon and the donees therein never came in possession over the gifted land. Simultaneously it also came to the finding that the Panchnama, which was the basis of title of the defendants, was also not a legally valid document. However, on the basis of the orders passed by the revenue authorities as well as after considering other evidence on record it came to the finding that the defendant no. 1 was in possession over the suit land, and consequently dismissed the suit.

6. The appellate court below, on reappraisal of evidence, has come to the finding that the gift deed dated

18.10.1921 had been fully acted upon and the donee Visheshwar Singh acquired title and possession over the suit land on that basis Patna High Court SA No.486 of 2010 (8) dt.11-01-2013 4 and his son Ramashish Singh also inherited the said property after his death and validly transferred it in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs. The appellate court further disbelieved the Panchanama propounded by the defendant in support of his title and possession over the suit land. On the basis of these finding, the appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has firstly submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court below is not sustainable in law, as the appellate court has not considered each and every evidence led by the parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the appellate court was duty bound to consider the entire evidence in case of reversal by it of the decree appealed from. The reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama Vs. P.Prakash [2009 (4) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 111] for the proposition that the appellate court while reversing the judgment is bound to consider the entire evidence. It has further been canvassed by the learned counsel that the defendants are in adverse possession over the suit land and their possession has been well-established by different orders passed by the revenue courts, which have been correctly relied by Patna High Court SA No.486 of 2010 (8) dt.11-01-2013 5 the trial court.

8. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below and after considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is pellucid that the genealogical table is not in dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the suit land measuring 12 decimal has been recorded in chak khata no. 638 which has been carved out of C.S. plot no. 650 and 651. The execution of the deed of gift deed dated 18.10.1921 by Rudal Singh in favour of Visheshwar Singh has not been challenged but it has been asserted that the said gift deed did not relate to the suit land and remained inoperative, and Visheshwar Singh did not acquire title and possession over the suit land on that basis. The appellate court below, after the scrutiny of the documentary evidence, has come to the finding that the gift deed dated

18.10.1921 was with regard to the suit land also and the donee Visheshwar Singh and after his death his son Ramashish, both of whom were living with Rudal Singh and Tek Narain Singh, were in possession of the same. The appellate court has also taken notice of the fact that Rudal Singh or his son Tek Narain Singh never challenged the said gift deed of 1921 rather Tek Narain Singh executed another gift deed on 15.11.1973 in favour of Ramashish Singh. This later gift deed did not contain the suit plot Patna High Court SA No.486 of 2010 (8) dt.11-01-2013 6 and therefore the appellate court did not take it into consideration as a relevant document for purpose of finding the title of the plaintiffs.

9. From the perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate court below, it is discernible that a detailed analysis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties has been done before reaching to the conclusion that the gift deed dated 18.101921 contained the C.S. plot no. 651 besides other plots, and the suit land in chak no. 638 has been carved out of the same. The title and possession of Visheshwar Singh and after his death, of his son Ramashish Singh have been found and consequently the plaintiffs’ title and possession on the basis of purchase from Ramashish Singh have also been upheld.

10. The defendant no. 1 has come out with the case of acquisition of title over the suit land by him on the basis of oral gift and an unregistered deed of Panchanama (Ext.C) executed by Tek Narain Singh. It is obvious that this Panchanam is said to have been executed on 14.12.1973 by Tek Narain Singh when he had no title left in suit land. The appellate court below has also found that the valid execution of the Panchanama could not be established by the defendant no. 1. Both the courts below have also come to the finding that the defendants could not have Patna High Court SA No.486 of 2010 (8) dt.11-01-2013 7 acquired valid title on the suit land on the basis of the oral gift and unregistered Panchanama (Ext.C). The trial court however has recorded the finding that the defendants are in possession over the suit land and only on that basis it has dismissed the suit. The trial court has obviously committed an error in ignoring the fact that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession on the basis of title, and it was not a suit for possession on the basis of previous possession. In such a case the defendant, in order to succeed, was required to establish the case of adverse possession. In the present case, the defendant has claimed his title over the suit land on the basis of oral gift and Panchanama. It has also not been disclosed in the written statement by the defendant as to against whom he had been claiming adverse possession. It is well-established that the possession, howsoever long, may not mature into adverse possession in order to give title to the person in possession unless the necessary ingredients of adverse possession are pleaded and established. The claim over the suit land on the basis of title and on the basis of adverse possession cannot go together.

11. The submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellate court has not considered the entire evidence is clearly misconceived and reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case of L.N. Aswathama (supra) is also misconceived. The Patna High Court SA No.486 of 2010 (8) dt.11-01-2013 8 observation made in the judgment cannot be considered in isolation and out of the contest in which the same has been made. It has nowhere been laid down by their lordships in the said decision that the appellate court is bound to consider the entire evidence, remaining unconcerned with the relevancy. In the present case, it is manifest from the judgment that the appellate court has considered in detail the relevant and material evidence for deciding the issues. During the course of his submission, the learned counsel could not point out the material evidence which have been omitted from consideration by the appellate court, and the reliance on which could have turned the table in favour of the defendant no. 1-appellant. Non consideration of stray evidence, having no potentiality, will definitely not vitiate a well considered judgment.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Devendra/- (V. Nath, J)