Krishan Kumar Singh vs Lallu Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3226 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             S.A. No. 368 of 2015
                                        ------

1. Krishan Kumar Singh

2. Binod Singh

3. Rekha Kuer

4. Abhishek Kumar

5. Raushan Kumar

6. Rina Kumari

7. Sunil Kumar Singh ...Appellant(s).

                                   Versus
          Lallu Singh                                           ... Respondent(s)
          CORAM       :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                             Through: Video Conferencing
                                        ------
          For the Appellant(s)          : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.
                                          Mr. Manoj Kumar II, Advocate
          For the Respondent            :

10/02.09.2021: Heard the counsel for the appellants.

This Second appeal is under Section 100 of the CPC. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the District Judge I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 21 of 2006, whereby the appeal filed by these appellants, who were the plaintiffs was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 10 of 1990, which was dismissed resulting in filing of Title Appeal No. 21 of 2006. Thus, this is a Judgment of confirmation, which is sought to be challenged by the appellants. The suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs praying therein to hold and declare that the sale deeds No. 9315 dated 07.08.1989, 9929 dated 01.09.1989 and 9930 dated 01.09.1989 were executed by Balkeshwar Singh by undue influence and by committing fraud.

The Trial court after recording evidence and going through the records have concluded that no fraud was played nor the sale deed were executed under any undue influence. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of the Trial Court a Title Appeal being Title Appeal No. 21 of 2006 was filed. The appellate court after considering the Judgment of the trial court and after going through the evidence and the pleadings of the parties concurred with the Judgment and the findings of the Trial Court and held that the sale deed was executed in full conscious mind.

After going through the Judgment of the Appellate Court, I find that the Appellate Court after going through the evidence and pleadings have categorically concluded that the sale deeds were executed in conscious mind, to sale out the lands to the defendants. It has also been held that executant of the sale deed went to the office of Registrar and got these deeds executed. The Trial Court concluded that there are sufficient evidence to indicate that Balkeshwar Singh was fully conscious and was having good health when he executed the sale deeds. His act of execution is not suggestive of having done in any sub-conscious mind.

The only question raised in this second appeal is that the sale deed was executed by playing fraud and was executed by exercising undue influence.

Whether there was any fraud and whether the sale deed has been executed in conscious mind or not are absolute question of facts which involves no law. Both the Courts have concurrently given a finding of fact that the sale deeds were executed in conscious mind by Balkeshwar Singh. Thus, the question which has been raised, is absolutely a question of fact.

I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Thus, this appeal stands dismissed.

Rajnish/c.p.2                                                       (ANANDA SEN, J.)