) ------ 1. Anand Ram, aged about 70 years, son of Late Kamli Ram v. 1. Rampati Mosomat wife of Late Anand Lal Saw. 2
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.94 of 2018 ------ (Against the judgment dated 20.11.2017 passed by learned District Judge-III, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No.43 of 2012) ------ 1. Anand Ram, aged about 70 years, son of Late Kamli Ram. 2. Suresh Ram, aged about 50 years, son of Anand Ram. 3. Ganesh Ram, aged about 45 years, son of Anand Ram. 4. Naresh Ram, aged about 40 years, son of Anand Ram. All are residents of Village Chedra, P.O. and P.S. Bishungarh, District Hazaribag. .... .... …. Defendants/Respondents/ Appellants Versus 1. Rampati Mosomat wife of Late Anand Lal Saw. 2. Shekhar Prasad son of Late Anand Lal Saw. 3. Saradchand Prasad son of Late Anand Lal Saw. 4. Subhas Prasad son of Late Anand Lal Saw. 5. Sudhir Prasad son of Late Anand Lal Saw. 6. Asha Devi daughter of Late Anand Lal Saw. 7. Madhu Devi daughter of Late Anand Lal Saw. 8. Punam Devi daughter of Late Anand Lal Saw. 9. Putul Devi daughter of Late Anand Lal Saw 10. Loknath Saw son of Late Sheo Prasad Sao. 11. Hemant Kumar son of Late Sheo Prasad Sao. 12. Munni Devi widow of Late Suresh Saw. 13. Pankaj Kumar son of Late Suresh Saw. 14. Lalita Devi daughter of Late Suresh Saw. 15. Rekha Devi daughter of Late Suresh Saw. 16. Khublal Sao son of Late Jaskaran Sao. 17. Ramu Saw son of Late Jaskaran Sao. 18. Jagdish Prasad son of Late Jaskaran Sao. All are residents of Village Bishungarh, P.O. and P.S. Bishungarh, District Hazaribag. .... .... …. Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents For the Appellants For the Respondents : None : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, Advocate ------ ------ 1 S.A. No.94 of 2018
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY P R E S E N T ------ By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the first appellate court whereby and where under the first appellate court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the Plot No.1183, Khata No.96 also. The trial court being the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IV, Hazaribag vide judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.53 of 2000 dated 28.06.2012 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of Plot No.1182 of Khata No.96 and also decreed the suit in respect of the suit land of Khata No.251 but dismissed the suit in respect of Plot No.1183 under Khata No.96. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.53 of 2000 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hazaribagh with the prayer for declaration that suit Schedule Á’ land is the raiyati land of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have all sorts of right, title and interest over the same and other reliefs. 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the land of Khata No.96 was originally recorded in the name of Barho Ram. Barho Ram died living behind his three sons namely Gobardhan Ram, Babulal Ram and Komal Ram. Barho Ram had two wives. Gobardhan Ram was born from the first wife and Babulal Ram and Komal Ram were born from the second wife of Barho Ram. Gobardhan Ram died leaving behind two sons namely Jagarnath Ram and Jagdish Ram. Babulal Ram died issueless and Komal Ram died leaving behind his one son who is the 2 S.A. No.94 of 2018 defendant No.1. During the lifetime of Babulal Ram, Babulal Ram along with Komal Ram jointly executed a sale-deed in favour of Gobardhan Ram in the year 1918 and since then Gobardhan Ram had been in peaceful possession of the land without any interruption and hinderance. Gobardhan Ram was not alive in the year 1943. His two sons Jagarnath Ram and Jagdish Ram both transferred some land of Khata No.96 and 251 of the village- Chedra on 31.08.1943 in favour of Radhe Kishun Sao who came in possession thereof. 5. The further case of the plaintiffs is that their father Kishun Sao though purchased the land of Plot No.1183 of area 2.50 acres and Plot No.1182 of an area 2.29 acres of both Khata No.96 of the said village- Chedra but due to bonafide mistake instead of Plot No.1183, Plot No.1186 has been mentioned in the sale-deed concerned but the boundary of the land given in the description of the land made in the schedule of the sale-deed in that of Plot No.1183 and not of Plot No.1186; as such in case there is a discrepancy between the boundary and the revenue Plot number in respect of a particular plot of land, the boundary shall prevail and the plaintiffs filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. The defendant contested the suit by challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. It was further pleaded that Babulal Ram died in the year 1957 leaving behind his daughter namely Kaushalya Devi. The description of the property in this plaint is different from that of the sale-deed of the year 1918 executed by Babulal Ram and Komal Ram in favour of Gobardhan Ram. The defendants further pleaded that the said sale deed, is a forged document and was never acted upon. 3 S.A. No.94 of 2018 7. The defendant next pleaded that Jagarnath Ram and Jagdish Ram had actually 1/3rd share in the land of Khata No.96 and 251. So, they have no right over the land in respect of which the sale-deed was executed. 8. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial court settled the following issues: - I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? II. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action? III. Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest over the suit land, on the basis of the sale deed dated 01.09.43 in which the land of khata no.251 is involved and on the basis of sale deed no.3996 dated 07.09.43 in which the land of khata no.96, plot no.1182 and 1183 is involved? IV. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree that Schedule-A land is the raiyati land of the plaintiffs and whether the order of the D.C.L.R., Hazaribagh in Mutation Case No.11/97-98 dated 15.05.98 is illegal, inoperative and without consideration? To what other relief are the plaintiffs entitled thereto? The trial court first took up Issue Nos.IV and V together and after V. 9. considering the materials in the record, the trial court found that there is a wrong entry of the Plot Number of the sale-deed of the year 1943 in which Plot No.1183 has wrongly been mentioned as 1186 and came to the conclusion that since the Plot No.1183 has not been sold, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the remaining land. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant who is the appellant herein, did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)- IV, Hazaribagh dated 28.06.2012 passed 4 S.A. No.94 of 2018 in Title Suit No.53 of 2000 but the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the portion of the judgment and decree in which the relief in respect of Plot No.1183 was not granted to him and the suit was dismissed in respect of Plot No.1183, preferred Title Appeal No.43 of 2012 in the court of Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh,
Decision
which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned District Judge-III, Hazaribagh in the Title Appeal No.43 of 2012. 10. The learned first appellate court considered that though by mistake, the Plot No.1183 has been mentioned as 1186 in the sale-deed concerned but as the boundary of the plot is that of plot No. 1183 and not that of plot No.1186, so, in case of discrepancy between the survey number and the boundary will prevail and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of Plot No.1183 of Khata No.96 area 2.5 acres Village- Chedra, P.S.- Bishungarh, District- Hazaribag also. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial court has illegally set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. It is next submitted that the learned appellate court has wrongly held that the ancestor of the plaintiffs purchased Plot No.1183 of Khata No.96 area 2.5 acres. It is also submitted that the recital of the sale-deed which is 57 years old, cannot be discarded. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District judge-III, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No.43 of 2012 be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court be restored. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here 5 S.A. No.94 of 2018 that the title of the plaintiffs was declared on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Jagarnath Ram and Jagdish Ram in favour of the plaintiffs and Jagarnath Ram and Jagdish Ram acquired their right, title and interest on the basis of the transfer made by Babulal Ram and Komal Ram in favour of their father Gobardhan Ram in the year 1918 and on that basis, the suit was decreed in respect of the suit property existing except on Plot No.1183; in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant has not challenged the said judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.53 of 2000, so, it is not open for the defendants of the suit, who is the appellant in the second appeal to question the transfer of property inter alia by the father of the defendant No.1 namely Komal Ram and Babulal Ram in the year 1918, in favour of Gobardhan Ram and thus, after death of Gobardhan Ram, his two sons namely Jagarnath Ram and Jagdish Ram having inherited the said property executed sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the only question before the first appellate court was whether the description of the plot number concerned has been mentioned as 1186 in the sale-deed instead of 1183. The undisputed fact remains that the boundary of 1186 mentioned in the sale-deed is in fact that of the boundary of Plot No.1183. Whether the learned trial court being the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IV, Hazaribagh has committed illegality and the first appellate court after considering the evidence in the record has arrived at a finding of fact that since the boundary undisputedly shows that the land which was sold is plot No. 1183 and not plot No. 1186. Hence, this court is of the considered view that such finding of the fact of the first appellate court being the District Judge-III, Hazaribagh cannot be termed as perverse warranting interference of this Court 6 S.A. No.94 of 2018 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding perversity in appreciation of the evidence in the record is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that that perversity, so far as it relates to interfering with the findings of fact by exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding, so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others reported in 2010 (13) SCC 216 para-28 of which reads as under :- “28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [(2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685].“ 7 S.A. No.94 of 2018 and the same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs R.Vijaya Renganathan & Others reported 2010 (11) SCC 483 and which has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 694. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, once a finding of fact has been arrived at by the appellate court that the plot number in question is in fact 1183 and wrongly mentioned as 1186, the fact that it has mentioned in a sale-deed of 57 years old documents is of no consequence. Because the suit is not challenged on the ground of limitation as the cause of action for suit arose within the limitation and thus, question of limitation did not arise as an issue between the parties. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 16. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th of July, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 8 S.A. No.94 of 2018