1 Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent
No.1 as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government
Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.3.
Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit Class No.
learned district judge Raipur in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009 as null
against defendant No. 1 from receiving the compensation amount
defendant No.1 / respondent No.1 herein. Being dissatisfied and
"It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned
judgment and decree dated 25.04.2024 passed by the
learned Seventh Additional District Judge, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit Class - A/31/2017 and pass
an appropriate judgement and decree granting the relief
prayed for in the plaint, in the interest of justice."
3 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the appellant/plaintiff
purchased the land bearing khasra Nos. 383/2, 383/3 and 402
admeasuring 0.182 hec, 0.061 hec. and 0.121 hec., respectively
situated at village Mana, Patwari Halka No. 116, Tehsil and District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, from defendant No. 2 vide sale deed dated
16.12.2005 registered on 20.12.2005. Since then the plaintiff was
in peaceful possession of the said land as the sole owner of the
same. Out of the said land purchased by the plaintiff, some
portion was being acquired for the National Highway being khasra
No. 402 and 383/2 admeasuring 0.121 Hec and 0.0557 Hec,
respectively. When the said acquisition proceeding was being
concluded, the plaintiff came to know that the land belonging to
the plaintiff was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 in the
revenue record and further that the entire acquisition case was
being made and the award for payment of compensation passed
erroneously in the name of defendant No. 1. Upon coming to
know the said fact, the plaintiff served a legal notice to defendant
No.1 as well as to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue,) cum
Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, on 03.05.2017. In response to
the said legal notice, defendant No. 1, sent a reply on 23.05.2017
through his counsel informing that the name of defendant No.1
was recorded in the revenue records based on the sale deed
executed in his favour by the learned District Judge Raipur in
execution of a judgement and degree passed in his favour.
Though the defendant No. 1 did not furnish the details of the civil
suit or of the judgement and degree passed by the learned District
Judge Raipur, however, the plaintiff upon a detailed enquiry came
to know that a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009 for specific
performance was preferred by defendant No.1 against defendant
No.2 pursuant to an alleged agreement to sell entered as between
them on 03.07.2008. Defendant No.2 did submit his written
statement denying any such agreement to sell having been
entered between the parties in the said civil suit. Defendant No. 2
further stated that the said alleged agreement to sell was a forged
and a fabricated document. However, over the period of time
defendant No.2 was proceeded ex parte. The said civil suit was
allowed ex parte vide judgement dated 27.10.2010 and decree
dated 30.10.2010. In execution of the said judgement and decree,
the District Judge Raipur executed the sale deed in favour of
defendant No.1 on 24.02.2012.
4 The plaintiff having came to know of the said facts immediately
preferred a civil suit being Civil Suit Class-A/31/2017 for
declaration of title over the suit scheduled property as well as for
declaration of the judgement dated 27.10.2010 and decree dated
30.10.2010 passed by the learned district judge Raipur in Civil
Suit No. 21-A/2009 as null and void, as also seeking issuance of a
permanent injunction against defendant No.1 from receiving the
compensation amount flowing from the acquisition proceedings
for the national highway. Certified copy of the plaint is hereby
marked as Annexure A/2. Defendant No.2 submitted his written
statement and accepted the fact that the sale deed was executed
in favour of the plaintiff on 16.12. 2005, which was duly registered.
Pursuant to submission of the written statements by defendant
No.1 and defendant No.2, the learned trial Court framed the
necessary issues and proceeded with trial. Certified copy of the
written statement by defendant No.1 is hereby marked as
Annexure A/3. The plaintiff placed on record his registered sale
deed as well as the certified copies of the plaint and written
statement submitted by defendant No.1 and defendant No.2,
respectively in the civil suit between them. Certified copies of the
exhibits produced by the appellant/plaintiff are hereby
cumulatively marked as Annexure A/4. The learned Trial Court on
the basis of the material placed on record as well as the
depositions of the parties passed the impugned judgment and
decree dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure A/1) dismissing the suit
preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. Hence, this appeal.
5 Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff
submitted that the finding recorded the learned trial Court that the
execution of the sale deed dated 16.12.2005 in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff is proved, but then the plaintiff/appellant has
failed to prove his title over the said suit scheduled land because
the plaintiff / appellant has failed to produce any revenue record to
demonstrate that his name was ever mutated in the revenue
record, is wholly erroneous because once the execution of the
sale deed stands proved, the title in the land stands duly
conveyed to the plaintiff/appellant. The title does not flow from the
revenue record. He further submitted that despite clear evidence
having been placed on record to show that defendant No.1 and 2
acted collusively, the trial court held that the appellant/plaintiff
failed to show that there was any collusion between them. He
also submitted that the learned trial Court utterly failed to consider
that once the challenge was made to the judgement and decree
passed by the learned District Judge Raipur in Civil Suit No. 21-
A/2009, it cannot be said that the said judgement and decree has
attained finality because the appellant/plaintiff did not challenge
the same in appeal. Filing of an appeal or preferring a civil suit for
declaration of the said judgment and decree as null and void is an
option available with the plaintiff / appellant, and therefore it is
highly erroneous to hold that the appellant /plaintiff had to file an
appeal against the said judgement and decree passed in Civil Suit
No. 21-A/2009.
6 Mr. Das further submitted that the learned trial Court has
committed serious error in not considering the fact that the suit as
preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was to seek a declaration that
the judgement and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009 was
null and void as the same was obtained by playing fraud on the
learned Court. Despite defendant No. 2 having executed the sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff /appellant on 16.12.2005 have not
disclosed the said fact before the learned District Judge Raipur in
the civil suit as between him and defendant No.1. The only reason
for the said non-disclosure coupled with the fact that defendant
No.2 later became ex parte is the fact that they both acted in
collusion. The said judgement and decree Civil Suit No.
21-A/2009 was therefore vitiated on account of fraud. In support
of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Prakash
Agarwal and Another Vs. Gopi Krishan (dead through Lrs.)
and Others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 296. He lastly contended
that the learned trial Court committed a serious jurisdictional error
in rejecting the said civil suit preferred by the appellant as not
maintainable, as such, the judgement and decree dated
25.04.2024 passed by the learned Seventh Additional District
Judge Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit Class A/31/2017 is wholly
misconceived and is liable to be set aside.
7 Per contra, Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions
and supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly held
that the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish his lawful title over the
suit property. Merely proving the execution of a sale deed does
not ipso facto establish complete and lawful title, particularly when
the appellant failed to demonstrate mutation of his name in the
revenue records and failed to prove actual and continuous
possession in accordance with law. It is further submitted that
Respondent No.1 derived valid title pursuant to a decree passed
in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009 by the competent Court, followed by
execution of a registered sale deed in his favour through due
process of law. The said judgment and decree have attained
finality and remain binding, as the same were never challenged in
appeal before the appropriate forum. The appellant, being aware
of the said decree, cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory
remedy of appeal and instead seek declaration through a
separate suit, which is not maintainable in law.
8 Mr. Gupta also submitted that the allegations of fraud and
collusion are bald, vague and unsupported by cogent evidence.
The learned Trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that no
material was brought on record to substantiate the plea of
collusion between Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Mere non-disclosure of
certain facts, in absence of strict proof of fraud, cannot render a
judicial decree null and void. He contended that reliance placed
by the appellant on the judgment reported in Ram Prakash
Agarwal (supra) is misplaced and distinguishable on facts. He
further contended that the appellant has failed to establish any
illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court.
9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
carefully perused the pleadings, evidence and the entire record of
the case, including the impugned judgment and decree.
10 Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record, and the
rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
this Court finds that although the appellant has proved the
execution of the registered sale deed dated 16.12.2005 in his
favour, he has failed to establish a clear and legally enforceable
title over the suit property. The absence of mutation in the revenue
records, coupled with lack of cogent evidence demonstrating
continuous and lawful possession, creates a significant doubt
regarding the completeness of his title. The learned Trial Court
has, therefore, rightly held that mere execution of a sale deed, in
the facts of the present case, was insufficient to conclusively
establish ownership, particularly when competing claims
supported by a court decree exist.
11 So far as the challenge to the judgment and decree passed in
Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009 is concerned, this Court finds no merit in
the appellant's contention that the same is vitiated by fraud. The
reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ram Prakash Agarwal (supra), is misplaced in the facts of the
present case. While the said judgment undoubtedly lays down
that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, it equally emphasizes that fraud
must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by cogent
evidence. In the present case, apart from bald and
unsubstantiated allegations of collusion and non-disclosure, the
appellant has failed to place any material on record to
demonstrate deliberate deception or suppression of material facts
so as to vitiate the earlier decree. Mere non-disclosure of the prior
sale deed by defendant No. 2, in absence of proof of intentional
deceit or conspiracy, does not meet the threshold of fraud as
contemplated in law.
12 Further, it is evident that the judgment and decree passed in Civil
Suit No. 21-A/2009 have attained finality, as the same were never
challenged by the appellant before the appropriate appellate
forum. The appellant cannot be permitted to circumvent the
statutory remedy of appeal by instituting a separate suit for
declaration, particularly in the absence of proof of fraud of such
magnitude as would render the decree a nullity. The learned Trial
Court has rightly appreciated this legal position and held the suit
to be not maintainable. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional
error is found in the findings so recorded, warranting interference
by this Court in the present appeal.
13 In light of the above findings, this Court holds that the appellant
has failed to substantiate his claims and that the learned Trial
Court's decision to dismiss the suit was correct.
14 Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned
judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014 passed by the learned
Seventh Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit Class
A/31/2017 is upheld.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
