Jharkhand High Court
Abhoya Nand Pandey vs Kanthi Prasad Pandey on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A No. 433 of 2015
Abhoya Nand Pandey .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
Kanthi Prasad Pandey .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. R.C. Sahu, Advocate
------
10/25.11.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned senior counsel submits that both the courts below failed to take
into consideration Exhibit-B which is a judgment in the partition suit by virtue of
which the appellant is the owner of 12 decimal of property and that being so it is
impossible for him to sell 21 decimals of property. He submits that this point
should be considered and this appeal will be heard.
3. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and have gone through the
impugned judgments and the lower court record. The appellant is challenging the
judgment dated 16.7.2015 (decree dated 22.7.2015) passed by District Judge-II,
Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 42 of 2005 whereby the appellate court has
confirmed the judgment dated 31.01.2005 ( decree dated 05.02.2005)
corresponding to Title Suit No. 270/2001-52/2002 passed by Sub-Judge-IV,
Dhanbad. The appellant has lost the case before both the courts.
4. The plaintiff is the respondent herein. The plaintiff filed suit praying
therein for a decree of declaration that plaintiff has acquired perfect right, title and
interest over the suit land by virtue of the sale deed. He has also prayed for a
decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men, agents,
labourers etc. from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of his land.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant approached the plaintiff to sell the
land in question as he was in need of money. It is the case of the plaintiff that
defendant was in custody and as he was in need of money so that he can pursue
the criminal cases. It is the case of the plaintiff that while he was in jail custody
the defendant sought permission to produce him before the Sub-Registrar, Chas
to execute the sale deed. After permission was accorded, he was produced before
the Sub-Registrar, Chas under police custody, and there he executed the sale deed
for land measuring 21 decimals. Consideration money was also paid. It is the case
of the plaintiff that the defendant opposed mutation, though delivery of possession
was given and a wrong report was prepared by the Circle Officer, on the basis of
which the mutation application was rejected. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
mutation appeal was also rejected. Defendant disturbed the possession of the
plaintiff after those orders which prompted the plaintiff to file the suit.
5. The defendant appeared and filed their written statement. Their main plea
is that no money was given as consideration. They have further taken a plea that
registered sale deed was not acted upon and was mere paper transaction. He
further has taken a plea that defendant was suffering from mental derailment and
was under the treatment of medical officer and was not found in cold mind and
further consideration money was handed over to the brother-in-law of the
defendant and in connivance with the plaintiff the defendant has been cheated. He
also prays that even inspite of execution of the said sale deed, possession over the
land always remained with the defendant.
6. I have also gone through the evidence and the documents on record. The
sale deed is also on record. The admitted fact is that the defendant-appellant was
in custody and on his application he was produced from judicial custody before
the Sub-Registrar, Chas to get the sale deed executed. Sale deed was executed and
there is clear endorsement that monetary transaction has taken place. This clearly
suggest that defendants has taken a frivolous plea. The plaintiff has proved that
the sale deed was duly executed and the consideration money was transferred. So
far as Exhibit -B is concerned the same has got no relevance. The plea of the
defendant has been looked into by both the courts and concurrent judgment has
been passed upholding the contention of the plaintiff. The entire issue in this case
is factual finding of fact which has been set addressed by both the courts. These
facts cannot be reopen by this Court. Thus, I find no substantial question of law
involved in this appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
