The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge, held that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. If no prima facie case is found in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff faltered at the first stage of the triple test, i.e., having a prima facie case.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners are the descendants of one Prasadi Sah who filed a title suit seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the original owner of the suit land and further declaring the sale deed dated 20.03.1990 executed by one Bishun Sah as null and void and not operating and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for recovery of possession of the suit land. As Bishun Sah was used to gambling and was an addict, the defendant Pooran took advantage of this fact and got the land transferred in his name. An injunction was filed by the petitioner which was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both the courts below failed to consider that the vendor of defendant Pooran Sah got in share only 0.0021 ¼ hectare land, yet Bishun Sah sold 0.0036 ¼ hectare land to the defendant and it is very much apparent that he sold over and above his share though he has neither title nor possession over the said land.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same needs to be sustained. She argued that the plaintiff has, in fact, sold much of his share of land and has brought the title suit with the wrong statement and concealing a number of facts. She further contended that there is a concurrent finding of the two subordinate courts; these orders could not be lightly interfered with unless there is any material irregularity or perversity.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the plaintiff and the defendant both are claiming the disputed plot of land and in support thereof they are relying on certain documents. There appears some doubt over claim of the plaintiff as to the exact share and the description of the land. But the same is the matter of trial and the parties are required to prove their respective claim by leading cogent evidence. Two concurrent orders of learned Subordinate Courts are under challenge before this Court.
The Court observed that if there is a concurrent finding of two courts, the High Court should not interfere with the orders unless there is material irregularity or illegality, or perversity. But there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. If no prima facie case is found in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff faltered at the first stage of the triple test, i.e., having a prima facie case.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders or any error of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Premshila Devi & Ors. v Pooran Sah & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Case no.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.146 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra
Advocate for the Respondents: Mrs. Mallika Mazumdar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
