1. Rajeshwar Pandey 2. Sidheshwar Pandey 3. Indernath Pandey 4. Dayanand Pandey v. 1. Geeta Devi 2. Saligram Pathak 3
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 18 of 2017 1. Rajeshwar Pandey 2. Sidheshwar Pandey 3. Indernath Pandey 4. Dayanand Pandey Versus 1. Geeta Devi 2. Saligram Pathak 3. Smt. Geeta Devi 4. Smt. Vidya Devi 5. Smt. Sona Devi 6. Smt. Nirmala Devi 7. Smt. Suchita Devi 8. Suresh Prasad Mishra 9. Somnath Pathak 10. Mina Devi 11. Pawan Pathak 12. Baso Devi 13. Malti Devi 14. Subhash Devi 15. Gudiya Devi .... …. Appellants .... .... Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants For the Respondents -----
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate ----- Oral Order 11 / Dated : 02.05.2024 1. The suit filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant was dismissed in Title Suit No.19/2001 and the said dismissal affirmed in Title Appeal No. 29/2008 against which the second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. 2. Plaintiffs/appellants brought the suit for declaration of, a. title of Ram Kali Devi over the land in Schedule-A to that of plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 over the land given in Schedule-B of the plaint, and for confirmation of their possession thereof; b. and further declaration of sale deed No. 2511 dated 28.08.1968 and gift deed No. 4916 dated 23.11.1998 to be fraudulent and without consideration and null and void and; c. for permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. The suit land is measuring an area of 12.18 acres under under Khewat No. 6/1 of Village Kateya, PS Simaria, District Hazaribagh belonged to Ayodhya Pandey one share and another share belonged to Sukhan Pandey and Dukhan Pandey. There was family partition in the year 1938 between the branch of Ayodya Pandey and Sukhan & 1 Dukhan Pandey. Father of plaintiff no.1 to 4 and husband of plaintiff no.5 was gotiya the family of both the branches and was cultivating their lands. Out of area 11.38 acre was recorded in Khata no.65 as Bakast land of Khewat-holder No.6/1 and land measuring 80 decimal was recorded in Khata no.66 was also brought under cultivation by the Khewatdar and became their bakast land. 4. Bisheswar Pandey had no issue and he had possession of the properties at village Kateya to the Plaintiffs. Similarly Janki Nandan Pandey son of Dukhan Pandey had no issue out of love and affection made gift of 4.91 acres land under khata no.65 of village Kateya in favour of plaintiff no.5 Ramkali Devi, accepted the gift and came in khas possession over the land gifted (Schedule A) to her by registered deed no.5013 dated 08.09.1994. Sukhan Pandey died in the year 1939 and his property devolved to Janki Nandan Pandey by survivorship. 5. Bisheswar Pandey started residing at village Kateya in his old age and he was being nursed and maintained by these plaintiffs and died issueless in the year 1986 leaving behind his widow Nagin @ Nagina and he handed over the property to the plaintiffs. The shradh ceremony of Bisheswar Pandey was performed by the plaintiffs. 6. Most. Nagina too made a gift of land under khata about 65 measuring 4.03 acre is to plaintiffs no.1to 4 which has been detailed in schedule B of the plaint. They accepted the gift and came in cultivating possession of the same. The said deed of gift was registered being deed no.3584 dated 01.07.2000. 7. Jankin Nandan Pandey son of Dukhan Pandey had also no issue and he out of love and affection made a gift of 4.91 acre of his land of Khata no. 65 of village Katiya in favour of Plaintiff no.5 Ram Kali Devi by a registered gift deed no.5013 dated 08.09.1994. 8. Sukhan Pandey had died in the year 1939 and by the rule of survivorship the land devolved upon Janki Nandan Pandey. 9. After a proceeding Section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated by Defendant no.2, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that she had obtained a gift deed from Smt Nepur Devi Defendant no.1, measuring an area 4.72 acre under khata no.65 by deed no.4916 dated 23.11.1998. It is pleaded that the deed was non est as there was no acceptance of gift nor any delivery of possession. The said deed was a sham paper transaction. CASE OF DEFENDANTS 10. The main averments in the pleadings of defendants is that no partition was held in the year 1938 between Bisheshwar Pandey, Sukhan Pandey and Dukhan Pandey. It is denied and disputed that Khewat No.6/1 was divided in two parts. It is asserted that Bisheshwar Pandey had no land under Khewat No.6/1 at Village Kateiya hence, there was no occasion of partition. 2 11. It is contended that Ayodhya Pandey had executed an agreement of sale in favour of Sukhan Pandey and Dukhan Pandey with respect to his half share in the land of Khata No.65 and 66 under Khewat No.6/1 of Village Kateia on Jyesth Badi 1 Sambat, 1969. An agreement for sale was executed for consideration of Rs.800/-. Bisheshwar Pandey left his house and completely disassociated with his father Ayodhya Pandey and never returned to Village Kateia. Ayodhya Pandey was kept and maintained by Sukhan Pandey and Dukhan Pandey and after his death his Sharadh was performed by them. Bisheshwar Pandey never came into cultivating possession over the land. It is also denied that plaintiff no.1-4 are Gotias of Bisheshwar Pandey. It is denied that Janki Nandan Pandey executed a deed of gift measuring an area 4.91 acres of land of Khata No.65 of Village Kateia in favour of plaintiff no.5-Ram Kali Devi. 12. When it came to the knowledge of Janki Nandan Pandey about the deed of gift, he executed deed of cancellation no.5073 dated 12.09.1994. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated on an application by defendant no.2 when the plaintiff started construction on plot no.267. It is averred that deed of gift in favour of plaintiff no.5 was void, because Janki Nandan Pandey and his wife had earlier executed a deed of sale in favour of Nepur Devi with respect to land of Khata no.65, area 4.68 acre and .04 acre of land under Khata No.66 who came in cultivating possession of the same. Name of Nepur Devi was mutated. The deed of gift executed by Nagina Devi in favour of plaintiff was void and she has no right, title and possession over the property. 13. Sukhan Pandey died after 1939 and after his death, his interest did not devolve on Janki Nandan Pandey, but was inherited by his widow Sita Devi. Bisheshwar Pandey continued to live in his Village Kateia and his widow Nagina @ Nagin did not come to Kateia but went to her natal home. The pleadings of serving Nagina by the plaintiffs has been denied. 14. Nepur Devi executed a deed of gift bearing deed no.4916/98 dated 23.11.1998 in favour of the defendants. 15. Raja Ramgarh filed Certificate Case No.266/27-28 and 92/93 against Dukhan Pandey which showed that Ayodhya Pandey and his son Biseshwar Pandey has no concern with Khewat No.6/1. It is stated that they were Khewatdar and Bakast Malik of the land and he sold his right by executing an agreement for sale in Sambat 1969 in favour of Sukhan Pandey and Dukhan Pandey with respect to land measuring 6.09 acres. Both of them came in continuing possession of the said land and a bond of Rs.100/- was prepared in the name of Bisheshwar Pandey Compensation Case No.172/69-70. It is denied that any return filed by Bishewar Pandey in 1954-55. 16. Defendant no.4 and 5 have filed separate joint written statement. It has been inter alia pleaded that the gift deed dated 08.09.1994 bearing deed no.5018 was brought into 3 execution by in collusion with stranger who impersonated Janki Nandan Pandey. 17. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following main issues were framed: Issue No. 4 – Whether sale deed No. 2511 dated 28.08.1968 executed in favour of Nepur Devi and gift deed No. 4916 dated 23.11.1998 executed by Nepur Devi in favour of Gita Devi were forged, sham and null and void. Issue No. 5 – Whether plaintiff no. 5 Ram Kali Devi had acquired valid title over the land in suit through deed of gift executed by Janki Nandan Pandey mentioned in Schedule-B to the plaint and whether she is in possession thereof. Issue No. 6 – Whether plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 had acquired valid right, title and interest over the land in suit mentioned in Schedule-B to the plaint through gift of deed executed by Nagina Devi @ Nagin Devi through deed No. 3584 dated 01.07.2000 and whether the donees are in possession thereof? Issue No.7 Whether any partition by meets and bounds had taken place between Bisheshwar Pandey son of Ayodhya Pandey and Dukhan Pandey in the year 1938? Issue No.8 Whether the plaintiffs and valid right, title and possession over the sit properties? 18. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit by answering all these issues against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. 19. The First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court with respect to issue no.4, 5, 7. 20. Issue no.6 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants by declaring that plaintiff no.1-4 had acquired valid right, title and possession in Schedule B land of the plaint. 21. Issue no.8 was partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to Schedule B land. 22. The trial court and the First Appellate Court have returned a concurrent finding that by the sale deed executed in 1968 valid title was passed to Nepur Devi, divesting title of Janki Nandan Pandey over the suit land. Therefore, the subsequent gift executed by him in favour of Ram Kali Devi by Janki Nandan Pandey was non-est in the eyes of law. 23. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the sale deed purported to be executed by Janki Nandan Pandey and Sita Devi on 28.08.1968 in favour of Nepur 4 Devi (Ext.C) was never acted upon and it remained a sham paper transaction. This will be evident from the fact that Ram Kali Devi continued in possession over the said plot as will be evident from the deposition of DW 4 in the cross-examination that on the basis of gift deed executed by Janki Nandan Pandey on 08.09.1994, Ram Kali Devi came in possession over the said plot and there was Indira Awas constructed over it in which Daya Nand Pandey was living with his family. DW 17 has also admitted the possession of Ram Kali Devi. Said deed was a sham paper transaction. It is submitted that the finding of the First Appellate Court is perverse with respect to Issue No. 5. 24. From bare refusal of the pleadings and issues framed by the trial Court it will be evident that plaintiffs claimed proprietary title over the Suit land detailed in schedule A of the plaint on the basis of a deed of gift executed by Janki Nandan Pandey on 24.11.1998. 25. The central issue is execution of sale deed way back in 1968 followed by the registered deed of gift executed by the purchaser deriving title from the said sale. These documents were assailed to be forged and sham transactions. Both learned Court below have upheld these documents. In view of the concurrent finding of facts, I do not find any substantial question of law to admit this second appeal. Appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. AKT/Satendra Uploaded (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 5