Murlidhar Verma vs Alok And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4757 Chatt

                                                                     NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   Second Appeal No. 224 of 2013

    Murlidhar Verma, S/o Hukum, aged about 82 Years, R/o
    Belargondi, P.C. No. 50, R.I.Circle-Chhuria, Tahsil And District
    Rajnandgaon C.G.

                                                           ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

  1. Alok, S/o R.K. Mishra, aged about 43 years, R/o Village
     Belargondi, P.C.No. 50, R.I. Circle-Chhuria, Tahsil and District
     Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

  2. Amit, S/o R.K. Mishra, aged about 22 years, R/o Belargondi,
     P.C.No. 50, R.I.           Circle-Chhuria,   Tahsil   And   District
     Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

  3. State Of Chhattisgarh, through- Collector, Rajnandgaon(C.G.)

                                                       ---- Respondents

___________________________________________________________________
     For Appellant              : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
     For Respondent No.3/State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel
                                  Lawyer.


             Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                          Judgment On Board

26/07/2022

  1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of
     law in this second appeal preferred by the Appellant against
     the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.02.2013 passed
     by      learned      Second       Additional     District       Judge,
     Rajnandgaon(C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.49-A/2012, whereby the
     appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant has been dismissed
     and the judgment and decree passed by learned First Civil
     Judge Class-I, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.38-A/2002 was
     affirmed.

  2. Facts

herein/Plaintiffs have filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaration of title and for permanent injunction of the suit land admeasuring area 12.05 acres situated at village Belargondi, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). It was pleaded by them that initially the said land was purchased by Vibhooti Bhushan through registered sale deed dated 29.04.1971 from the Appellant herein/Defendant. Thereafter, the suit land total Rakba 12.50 acres was sold by Vibhooti Bhushan to Respondents No.1 & 2 herein/Plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 16.05.1991. At the time of execution of sale deed, the possession was also transferred in favour of the Plaintiffs and remaining land of Vibhooti Bhushan was also given by him to the Plaintiffs on lease. On 13.07.1991, when the Plaintiffs have entered in the suit land for agricultural operation, they were obstructed by the Appellant herein/Defendant and also they were restrained from doing agricultural work on the said land. Thereafter, the Respondents No. 1 & 2 herein/Plaintiffs filed the suit.

3. Appellant/Defendant in his written statement/counter claim, denied the claim of Respondents No.1 & 2/Plaintiffs. It was pleaded by him that no such land was sold to Vibhooti Bhushan, the transaction was the Benami Transaction and no consideration amount was obtained by him from Vibhooti Bhushan, therefore, on the basis of aforementioned sale deed, no title was transferred in favour of Vibhooti Bhushan. He further pleaded that he is still in the possession of the suit land. On 25.09.1971, an agreement was also executed between him and Vibhooti Bhushan, in which it was stated that despite of the sale deed, the possession on the suit land was in favour of Appellant/Defendant. As Vibhooti Bhushan has no title over the suit land, therefore, he has no right to sale the suit land to Respondents No.1 & 2/Plaintiffs.

4. Respondents No.1 & 2/Plaintiffs in their written statements filed against the counter claim pleaded that Vibhooti Bhushan was the absolute owner of the suit land as the sale deed dated 25.09.1971 is a valid sale deed.

5. The Trial Court after framing the issues, appreciating the evidence and material available on record decreed the suit filed by the Respondents No.1&2/Plaintiffs. It was held by the Trial Court that on the basis of sale deed dated 16.05.1991, the Plaintiffs have acquired the right title and interest over the suit land. It was also held by the Trial Court that the lease were also granted in favour of the Plaintiffs.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant herein/Defendant preferred First Appeal before the lower First Appellate Court which was dismissed by the said Court as mentioned in Paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this Second Appeal.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant herein/Plaintiff submits that both the Courts below have erred in law on facts in holding that the sale deed dated 16.05.1991 executed by Vibhooti Bhushan in favour of Respondents No.1&2/Plaintiffs passed on legal and valid title in respect of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiffs. Both the Courts below ought to have held that the competent authority under the Agriculture Ceiling Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) by its order dated 09.10.1975 declared the sale in favour of Vibhooti Bhushan as void, therefore, no such title was passed in favour of Vibhooti Bhushan in respect of the suit land. Therefore, sale deed dated 16.05.1991 did not create any title in favour of Respondents No.1&2/Plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have erred in ignoring the documentary evidence on record and the finding, judgment and decree are based on no evidence on record. Therefore, the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below are erroneous and liable to be set-aside.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. According to the pleadings and evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs, the suit land was sold to them by Vibhooti Bhushan vide sale deed dated 16.05.1991. There is no dispute on the point that the said land was sold by Appellant herein to Vibhooti Bhushan vide sale deed dated 29.04.1971. It was the case of Appellant herein that the said sale deed dated 29.04.1971 was executed without obtaining any consideration amount and it was only a Benami Transaction, therefore, Vibhooti Bhushan has no right to sale the land to Respondents No.1&2/Plaintiffs. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties and admissions made by them, it appears that both the Courts below have rightly held that the sale deed dated 29.04.1971 was duly executed between both the parties. The Appellant herein failed to establish that it was only the Benami Transaction and no consideration amount has been obtained by him from Vibhooti Bhushan. Therefore, it was rightly held by the Courts below that on the basis of sale deed dated 29.04.1971, Vibhooti Bhushan obtained the title on the suit land. Therefore, it was also rightly held by the Courts below that Vibhooti Bhushan is absolute owner to sale the suit land to the Plaintiffs.

10. From the above discussion, it is clear that the above concurrent findings of both the Courts below are findings based on material available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and the appeal does not involves any substantial question of law.

11. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the findings so recorded by the Courts below. It therefore deserves to be and are hereby affirmed.

12. The second appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham