Jharkhand High Court
Ram Ashish Sharma vs 2.Smt. Manti Devi on 6 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 180 of 2020
Ram Ashish Sharma .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
2.Smt. Manti Devi
3.Smt. Kiran Sinha . .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) :
......
07/ 06.05.2024. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.
1. The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree
passed by learned District Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Civil
Appeal No.05 of 2016 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and
decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I at Chaibasa in Title
Suit No.30 of 2012.
2. Appellant is the defendant and the Second Appeal has been preferred against
the judgment of affirmance by which the suit of the plaintiff/respondent(s) for
declaration of right, title and interest as well as recovery of khas vacant
possession has been decreed by both the learned Courts below.
Case of the Plaintiff(s)/ Respondents
3. The case of the plaintiff(s)/ respondent(s), in brief, is that the suit land was
acquired by the plaintiff by virtue of a registered deed of sale No.821 dated
22.03.1985 from previous owner, Smt. Bengali Devi in the name of his wife,
Smt. Ram Dulari Devi, since then he is the absolute owner thereof with
possession and the land was also mutated in Mutation Case No.03 of 1998-99.
The plaintiff was in Government service having sufficient means of earning by
way of salary while his wife was having no income and the wife of the plaintiff
was an ostensible owner and the plaintiff was the real owner.
4. The suit land is in sub-plot No.62 (old) of Plot No.2880 under Khata No.8 (old)
corresponding to new plot no.126 under new Khata No.27, Purani Parti having
an area of 2 Katha equal to 5 decimals in Mohalla Nimdih, Ward No.7 within
Chaibasa Municipality
5. The plaintiff retired on 31.01.1997 and thereafter got a building plan
sanctioned from municipality and completed the construction of the building in
the year 2001 and started residing in his house on the eve of Dussehra.
Defendant is the son of brother in law of the plaintiff and was permitted to live
in a portion of the house. The plaintiff demanded vacant possession of the suit
premises, and same was denied and a legal notice was also sent on 21.11.2012
and accordingly the cause of action started from November, 2012.
The case of the Defendant/Appellant:-
6. The defendant/appellant appeared and filed his written statement and had
pleaded that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the suit property rather the
consideration amount of the property was paid by him by taking loan from
Asha Devi as the plaintiff is 'Fufa' of the defendant and has no male child. The
defendant is residing with the plaintiff since his childhood. The plaintiff and his
wife treated him as their own son and the plaintiff had no sufficient means to
maintain himself as he had been suspended from service, and the defendant
used to reside in the said house/premises and he is not a licensee rather he is
residing in his own right, title and interest since 1985.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following main issued were framed :-
(IV) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over suit property,
described in Schedule?
(V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of khas possession of suit
house and premises after evicting /dispossessing the defendants form the suit
premises by process of law?
8. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit by recording finding of facts in favour of
the plaintiff.
9. Learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment passed by the learned
Trial Court.
10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that defendant was in
continuing possession of the house, in question, after execution of the sale deed
from the year 1985 and had acquired title by adverse possession and the same
was not considered either by the learned Trial Court or by First Appellate
Court.
11. Having considered the submissions of the parties, it is apparent that there is no
denial that suit property had been purchased by the plaintiff through registered
deed of sale and the defendant/appellant was inducted gratuitously in
permissive possession of the property. Title of the plaintiff is being contested
on the ground that defendant had furnished a part of the consideration money,
which has not been found to be true by concurrent findings of both the learned
Courts below. In any case title of a plaintiff cannot be disputed on the ground
that one had given loan to the plaintiff, to purchase the suit property.
The instant Second appeal is shorn of any merit is accordingly
dismissed with cost. Appeal cannot be permitted to be a forum to prolong
illegal occupation by any party. The cost is assessed to be Rs 10,000/- to be
paid to the plaintiff/respondent by the defendant/appellant.
Learned Court below is directed to proceed with execution of the
decree and conclude it within six months as per the guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418
and send the compliance report of execution within six months of the order.
Let this case be listed on or before 11th November 2024 on receipt of the
compliance report from the learned Court below. Copy of the order be
communicated by the office to the learned Court below within a week of the
order.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/Uploaded.
