) ------ 1. Krishna Sahu s/o late Bharat Sahu 2. Kishore Sahu s/o late v. 1. Ram Mohan Sahu s/o late Bharat Sahu 2. Chandra Mohan Sahu s/o late
Case Details
Second Appeal No. 623 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.623 of 2016 (Against the Judgment and decree dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Khunti in Title Appeal No. 119 of 2007) ------ 1. Krishna Sahu s/o late Bharat Sahu 2. Kishore Sahu s/o late Bharat Sahu Both resident of village Khudri, P.O. Raishimla, P.S. Torpa, Dist. Ranchi (Khunti) .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. Ram Mohan Sahu s/o late Bharat Sahu 2. Chandra Mohan Sahu s/o late Bharat Sahu 3. Mahabir Sahu s/o late Bharat Sahu All resident of Village Khudri, P.O. P.O. Raishimla, P.S. Torpa Dist. Khunti 4. Lakho Devi, w/o late Udai Nath Sahu 5. Bijay Sahu s/o late Udai Nath Sahu 6. Ganesh Sahu s/o late Udai Nath Sahu 7. Ashok Sahu s/o late Udai Nath Sahu 8. Raju Sahu s/o late Udai Nath Sahu All resident of Village Khudri, P.O. Raishimla, P.S. Torpa Dist. Khunti 9. Puniya Devi w/o Santosh Sahu d/o late Udai Nath Sahu, resident of village Ranchi over Bridge, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, Dist. Ranchi 10. Bimla Kumari d/o late Udai Nath Sahu resident of village Khudri, P.O. Raishimla, P.S. Torpa Dist. Khunti 11. Munia Devi w/o Durga Prasad Kundu, resident of Village Karra, P.O. & P.S. Karra, Dist. Ranchi 12. Ravi Shankar Krishna Govind Gopal s/o late Lakhan Lal Sahu, resident of Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, Dist. Ranchi (Khunti) 13. Nand Kishore Sahu s/o late Jageshwar Sahu 14. Dwarika Sahu s/o late Jageshwar Sahu 15. Kedar Sahu s/o late Jageshwar Sahu resident of Village Karra, P.O. & P.S. Karra, Dist. Ranchi ... .... …. Respondents For the Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Sahay, Advocate ------ ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2 This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of 1 Second Appeal No. 623 of 2016 Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Khunti in Title Appeal No. 119 of 2007 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of concurrence, the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal without finding any justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Sub-Judge-I, Khunti in Title Suit No. 05 of 1998 dated 10.07.2007. 3 The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the parties to the suit are Hindus and are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1 to 5 are the coparceners of the joint family property. The defendant nos.1 to 5 sold the said land to the defendant nos.8 to 10 even though there is no partition of the property between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1 to 5 by metes and bounds. The defendant nos.1 to 5 have also sold some property to defendant nos. 6 and 7 but the plaintiffs have challenged the sale deed executed by the defendant nos.1 to 5 dated 12.06.1981 in favour of the other defendants being void ab initio. 4 The defendant nos. 1 to 5 in their joint written statement pleaded that under the wrong advice, they executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant nos.8 to 10. 5 The defendant nos.6 and 7 in their joint written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and justified that the sale deed have properly been executed in their favour. 6 The defendant nos.8 to 10 in their joint written statement 2 Second Appeal No. 623 of 2016 challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and pleaded that the plaintiff no.1 has no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiff no.1 is an imposter and stranger to the family of the recorded tenant and plaintiff nos.2 and 3 are not the sons of the plaintiff no.1 rather they are the sons of Bharat Sahu through his legally married wife Gujri Devi. 7 On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the following nine issues were framed by the trial court:- (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) (VII) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title, interest and possession Have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit? Is the suit maintainable in its present form? Is the suit barred by law of limitation, adverse possession and ouster? Is the suit barred by principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence? Is the suit barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act? Is the suit bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? over the suit property? (VIII) Whether the deeds of sale dt. 12-6-81 executed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 is void or valid? (IX) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case? 8 Learned trial court considered the evidence in the record i.e. the oral testimonies of the five witnesses examined by the plaintiffs and the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to 3 as well as the oral testimonies of the five witnesses examined by the defendant nos.8 to 10 and the documents which have been marked as Ext. G to L as also the oral testimonies of the four witnesses examined by the defendant nos.6 and 7 and the documents which have been marked as Ext. A to F. 9 The learned trial court first took up issue nos. (VII) and (VIII) together and considering the evidence in the record observed that it is unable to hold that sale deed dated 12.06.1981 executed in 3 Second Appeal No. 623 of 2016 favour of the defendant nos.8 to 10 in respect of the suit property is either valid or void. Then the learned trial court took up issue no. (III) and came to the conclusion that no finding can be given in respect of issue no. (III), so, the issue is partly decided in favour of the defendant nos. 6 to 10 and against the plaintiffs. In respect of issue no. (VI), the learned trial court held that the suit is not bad for non- joinder or misjoinder of necessary parties. In respect of issue no. (V), the learned trial court held that since the plaintiffs have purposely omitted to seek relief for cancellation of sale deeds executed in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant nos. 6 to 10 hence, the suit is hit by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and decided the said issue in favour of the defendant nos. 6 to 10 and against the plaintiffs. The learned trial court next took up issue nos. (I) and (II) together and held that the suit is not maintainable nor there is valid cause of action. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no. (IX) and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and dismissed the suit. 10 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.119 of 2007 in the court of Principal District Judge, Khunti which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment. 11 The learned first appellate court formulated the following five points for determination :- (i) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation? (ii) Whether the suit is barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act? 4 Second Appeal No. 623 of 2016 (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property? (iv) Whether the deed of sale dated 12.6.81 executed by the defendant no. 1 to 5 in favour of the defendant nos. 8 to 10 is void or valid? (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed by them? 12 The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and after considering the materials and evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation since P.W.1- Krishna Sahu was aged about 25 years when the suit was filed on 21.04.1998, so he attained majority in the year 1994 and the suit should have been filed within three years challenging the deed of 1981 latest by 1997 but as the suit was filed on April, 1998 hence, the same is hopelessly barred by limitation and held that the suit has rightly being dismissed and dismissed the appeal as well. 13 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below has committed illegality in holding that the suit is barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and also barred by Limitation. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed after formulating the appropriate substantial question of law. 14 Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that though the plaintiffs could have sought the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 12.06.1981 is null and void but obviously since the suit was barred by limitation so the plaintiff avoided doing so. As rightly held by the learned first appellate court, the plaintiff no.1 5 Second Appeal No. 623 of 2016 having attainted majority in the year 1994, the suit ought to have been filed by 1997 but as the suit was filed in the year 1998 certainly the same was barred by limitation. 15 After going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court was not done by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material. Nor the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court being the final court of facts so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse. 16 Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the concurrent finding of facts returned by both the courts below having not suffered from perversity, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of both the courts below. Further there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 17 Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 18 Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd May, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- 6