High Court
Case Details
RSA 126/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment an d decree dated 13.11.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 6/2005, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant and affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2005 passed by the learned Civil J udge, Sr. Division, Nagaon in Title suit No. 80/1999.
Legal Reasoning
2. The appellant, herein, has instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession in respect of t he land measuring 6 bighas 4 kathas contending inter alia that on the death of h is father Nawab Ali the property devolved amongst his heirs and wife including the plaintiff. It is further pleaded in the plaint that though the plaintiff was possessing the land, he was, however, subsequently, dispossessed by the defenda nts, for which the plaintiff had to institute the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession of the same by evicting the defendants. 3. The defendants No. 1 to 8 contested the suit by filing joint wri tten statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff sold the land in their f avour by executing deeds of sale (Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’) and as such the plainti ff has no title, title and interest over the suit land. 4. amed the following issues for determination :- On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court fr 1. 2. 3. 4. Whether there is cause of action for the suit ? Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation ? Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the sui t land and possession over ka and kha schedule land ? 5. Whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the Ga sch edule land and entitled to recovery of the khas possession ? 6. Whether the defendant has right, title and interest over the s uit land ? 7. What relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to ? The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by bot 5. h parties, including the documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaint iff by holding that as the plaintiff has transferred the land in favour of the d efendants by executing registered deeds of sale (Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’), he has lost his title over the suit land. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the Title Appeal No. 6/2005 in the court of the learned District Judge which was dis missed by the aforesaid judgment dated 13.11.2006. Hence the present appeal.
Legal Reasoning
6. nt and Mr. M. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. I have heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the appella 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant t hat since the appellant has disputed his signature in the sale deeds i.e. Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’, the learned court below ought not to have decided the suit land in favour of the defendants. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the s ubstantial question of law involved in the appeal is -- ’whether the defendants could prove the Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’ sale deeds as required by law.’ 8. Per contra, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 8 (respondent 1 and 3 died during the pendency of the appeal and whose names are struck off as the respondents No. 2 and respondents No. 4 to 8 are the ir legal heirs, who are already on record) has submitted that though the defenda nts in the written statement filed, has pleaded purchase of the land from the pl aintiff vide Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’, the plaintiff never challenged the said sale deeds. It has also been submitted that no evidence has been led by the plaintif f to demonstrate that he did not execute the said sale deeds. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counse l for the parties and also perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learn ed courts below. 10. As noticed above, the plaintiff claims right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession over the suit land by right of inheritance. The defendants have not disputed the claim of the plaintiff that he has inherited t he property from his father. The defendants have pleaded in the written statemen t that vide Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’ the plaintiff has transferred the suit land in their favour and as such the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over th e suit land. Both the courts below found that the defendants could prove due ex ecution of the sale deeds (Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’ ) by the plaintiff. The plainti ff never challenged the said sale deeds and also not challenged the execution of such sale deeds. The plaintiff in the first Appellate Court has made the oral s ubmission that the sale deed was not executed by him without however leading any evidence to that effect. 11. The sale deeds Exts. ’Unga’ to ’Jha’ are the registered instrume nts and the registering authority has issued the certificate of registration. Se ction 60 of the Registration Act, 1980 provides that the certificate issued by t he registering authority shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that the documents have been duly registered in the manner provided in the Act and the f acts mentioned in the endorsement, referred to in Section 59 of the Act have occ urred as mentioned therein. The endorsement of the registering authorit y reveals admission of execution of sale deeds by the plaintiff. As noticed abov e, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to rebut the presumption relating to d ue execution of the sale deeds. That being the position, I am of the view that no substantial qu 12. estion of law is involved in the present appeal to admit the same and hence, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.