HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. NATH ORAL ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.620 of 2010 ====================================================== 1.Maheshwar Bhagat , S/o Late Jagarnath Bhagat, resident of Mohalla- Mohammadpur Kazi Amgola, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, P.O. & Town Muzaffarpur, Dist-Muzaffarpur 2. Smt. Ranjan Devi, widow of late Umesh Rajak 3. Rakesh Ranjan 4. Sanjay Rajak @ Sanjay Kumar 5. Rajiv Kumar 6. Sanjeev Kumar, all 3 to 6 sons of late Umesh Rajak. Nos. 2 to 6 are resident of Mohalla-Amgola, P.O. Ramna, P.S.-Kazi Mohammadpur, Ward No. 34(New), 29(old), Munsifi Muzaffarpur East, Dist-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus
Legal Reasoning
1.Smt. Manju Devi wife of Shri Ajay Kumar 2. Shri Ajay Kumar, s/o late Ramdeo Prasad, both residents of village/Mohalla Amgola Belwa Lane, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, P.O. Town and Dist.-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manidra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 7 24-01-2013 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court below reversing the dismissal of the suit by the trial court. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit land. The plaintiffs also sought the relief for a direction to the defendant no.1 to hand over the registration receipt or in the alternative to declare the certified 2 Patna High Court SA No.620 of 2010 (7) dt.24-01-2013 2 / 5 copy of the said receipt dated 10-9-1998 to have the effect of original if the defendant no.1 had withdrawn the original copy of the sale deed. 3. The essential facts are not in dispute that the suit land originally belonged to the defendant no.1, who executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff no.1 for the same and got it registered in accordance with law. However, it is the case of the plaintiffs that although the agreed consideration money of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the defendant no.1, who after receiving the said amount, made endorsement on the back of the registration receipt authorizing the plaintiff no.1 to obtain the original copy of the sale deed from the registration office and handed it over to the plaintiffs, but soon thereafter he got the registration receipt snatched from the possession of the husband of the plaintiff no.1 with the help of antisocial elements. 4. The defendant no.1, on the other hand, has come out with the case that although the agreed amount of consideration money was Rs.1,50,000/- , but the plaintiffs got only Rs.50,000/- mentioned in the sale deed as consideration money and when the agreed consideration amount was not paid to the defendant no.1, he withheld the registration receipt . It is also the case of the defendant no.1 that as he was in urgent need of money for performing the marriage of his daughter, he sold the suit land with defendant nos. 2 to 6 after receiving Rs.1,50,000/- from them. 5. The trial court, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit. The appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence of the parties, has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court by the impugned judgment and decree. 3 Patna High Court SA No.620 of 2010 (7) dt.24-01-2013 3 / 5 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellate court below has not properly considered the provision of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and has wrongly held that the title has passed to the plaintiffs. It has been urged that the passing of the title was dependent upon the payment of consideration money, and as the same was not paid, the plaintiffs cannot get the relief, as prayed. It has been further canvassed by the learned counsel that the appellate court below has also failed to meet the reasonings of the trial court and the impugned judgment is vitiated on that score. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in 1986 P.L.J.R(NOC) F, 1984 P.L.J.R 659, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2216 and A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 302. 7. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as on perusal of the impugned judgments of both the courts below, it is manifest that the defendant no.1-appellant has admitted the execution, and the registration of the sale deed for the suit land in favour of the plaintiff no.1. The demonstrable facet of the discord is that the plaintiff no.1 claims to have paid the entire agreed consideration money of Rs.50,000/-, whereas the defendant no.1 asserts that the agreed consideration money was Rs.1,50,000/- and nothing has been paid to him. The appellate court has taken into notice the endorsement made by the defendant no.1 on the sale deed, the certified copy of which has been brought on record as Ext.3 on behalf of the plaintiffs. The said endorsement has been found to have been written by the defendant no.1 wherein he has stated that the consideration money was only Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiffs have asserted that they paid the agreed consideration money of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant no.1, who made the endorsement on 4 Patna High Court SA No.620 of 2010 (7) dt.24-01-2013 4 / 5 the back of the registration receipt in his own pen authorizing the plaintiff no.1 to withdraw the original sale deed from the Registration Office, and handed it over to the plaintiffs. The defendant no.1, however, has failed to produce the said registration receipt, which according to his own case was in his possession, for denying the assertion of the plaintiffs and to establish that no endorsement had been made on the back of the receipt. The appellate court has, therefore, drawn adverse inference against him on this score. Obviously, the original registration receipt was the crucial piece of evidence which had the potentiality to non-suit the plaintiffs altogether, if the endorsement, as asserted by the plaintiffs, would not have been there on its back in the writing of the defendant no.1. 8. The submission, as propounded on behalf of the appellants relating to passing of title in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act has clearly no application in the facts and circumstances of the case where admittedly the sale deed had been executed and registered and the payment of consideration money has been claimed by the plaintiffs to have been made. The material fact to be determined was the amount of consideration money and thereafter its payment. From the evidence, as discussed by the appellate court, it transpires that the defendant no.1 has admitted the execution of the sale deed before the registering authority. Later on, in his deposition(Ext.4) before the District Sub-Registrar he also admitted that he knew reading and writing, which fact shows that the endorsement in the execution portion of the sale deed in question is in the writing of the defendant no.1wherein he has stated the consideration money to be Rs.50,000/- only. The appellate court below has meticulously examined the material 5 Patna High Court SA No.620 of 2010 (7) dt.24-01-2013 5 / 5 evidence before reaching the conclusion that the consideration money for the sale in question was only Rs.50,000/- which had been paid to the defendant no.1 who later on has malafidely come out with the plea that the consideration money was Rs.1,50,000/- only for justifying the resale of the land to the defendant nos. 2 to 6 for higher amount. 9. The principle laid down in the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants with regard to passing of title in fact supports the case of the plaintiffs. Similarly the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arumugham v. Sundarambal [A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 2216]after considering the decision in the case of Ramchamdra v. Ramalingam[AIR 1963 Supreme Court 302] also does not support the submission on behalf of the appellants regarding the duty of the appellate court to consider the reasonings of the trial court. 10. The issues arising between the parties are concluded by the findings of fact by the appellate court below based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, and no perversity in any manner in the same could be established. 11. In the result, I find no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. .Roy/- (V. Nath, J)