Jharkhand High Court
Sri Sharda Prasad Verma vs Lakhpatia Devi on 17 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 443 of 2015
With
I.A. No. 4557 of 2019
-----
Sri Sharda Prasad Verma .... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Lakhpatia Devi
2. Sitapati Devi
3. Bina Devi
4. Jayant Kumar
5. Brajesh Kumar .... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
(Through: Video Conferencing)
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate.
------
13/17.02.2022: This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated
17.1.2014 passed in Title Suit No. 28/2010 by Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-IV, Bokaro
and the concurrent judgment dated 8.6.2015 passed by the District Judge, 1 st
Class, Bokaro in Title Appeal No. 06/2014.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant before the trial court and the
appellant in the first appellate court. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs
claiming for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of the possession
over the suit land, described in Schedule- A of the plaint. It has also been prayed
that if the plaintiff is found to be dispossessed, a decree of recovery of
possession by evicting the defendant No. 1. The suit was decree in favour of the
plaintiff. The defendants had challenged the same in Title Appeal, which was also
dismissed, resulting this appeal.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land of Khata No. 133, Plot No.
121 is recorded having an area of 21 decimals stands in the name of Durga Das
Pal alone. Thereafter the settlement of land was made in favour of Sabu @
Sarveshwar Pal and Kangal Pal and in the year 1939, 10.5 decimal of land was
sold to one Sitaram Marwari @ Agarwal and Kanhai Ram Marwari. Out of the
said land, heirs of Sitaram Marwari sold 6.5 decimals of the land to the plaintiffs.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant interfered with the possession of
the plaintiffs over the land in question, resulting the suit.
4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement stating that
they had purchased the land from the heirs of Bhikhari @ Bhikhu, sons of Manik.
It is submitted that the sale deed is dated 26.4.1990. It is the case of the
defendant that in the year 1970, there was a partition amongst the parties and
this land was also the subject matter of the partition. It is submitted that since in
the partition, the land in question fell in the share of Bhikhari @ Bhikhu and thus
his heirs sold the land to the defendant.
5. Both the trial court and the appellate court, after going through the
exhibits and evidence, independently have held that the plaintiff had better title
and thus decreed the suit.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the land was partitioned by
partition deed and the land in question fell in the share of Bhikhari @ Bhikhu and
his legal heirs are entitled to sell the same and thus the appellant has got title
over the property in question. He further submits that the sale was through the
registered sale deed.
7. After hearing the parties I find that the main question in this appeal is
whether the plaintiffs had valid right, title and interest over the property in
question. Both the courts below considering the facts of this case, have
answered this issue in favour of the plaintiffs. Both the courts below held that the
land was solely recorded in the name of Durga Das Pal. From the judgment, I
find that Durga Das Pal is the son of Kartik Pal and father of Kartik Pal was late
Gopal Das, whereas, the vendor of the defendants are from the branch of Debu
Pal. Since the land is recorded in the exclusive name of Durga Das Pal, and
there was settlement between the brothers of Durga Das Pal, who are the
vendors of the plaintiffs, the land devolved from the vendors of the plaintiff to this
plaintiff. Further the sale had taken place in the year 1939.
8. The defendants' claim is that they had purchased the land from the
legal heirs of Bhikhu Pal @ Bhikhu is from the Branch of late Debu Pal.
Admittedly, the land was not recorded jointly in the name of the ancestor of Debu
Pal and after partition of land, the land had not devolved upon Bhikhu. Even if
there is partition deed, no title will flow in favour of the heirs of Bhikhu. The
vendor of the plaintiff has better title and the chain is complete. Thus both the
courts below factually held that the vendor of the plaintiff had the title and they
had the authority to sale the land in question.
9. As the land admittedly was recorded in the name of Durga Das Pal it
will devolve amongst the heirs of his branch. Vendor of plaintiff purchased from
his branch. Defendants purchased from the branch of the agnates of Durga Das
Pal. Land recorded exclusively in favour of Durga Das Pal cannot be inherited by
the other branch when there were lineal descendants of Durga Das Pal.
10. Further the plaintiff had claimed right, title and interest over 6.5 decimal
of land. The defendant had not whispered about the land, which is governed by
the sale deed and from which the defendant had purchased the same.
11. For the sake of argument, even if the land is same, then the sale
deed through which Sabu @ Sarveshwar Pal and Kangal Pal sold the same is of
the year 1939 and the deed through which the defendants are claiming their title
is of the year 1990. If the title has already passed on in the year 1939 in respect
of the land, the sale deed of the year 1990 will have no effect, as the title did not
remain with the seller to transfer the land to the defendants.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find
no point of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
13. I.A. No. 4557 of 2019 is also dismissed, as the main appeal is
dismissed.
Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
