Smt. Girja Devi vs Ram Sipahi
2024 Latest Caselaw 16558 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Girja Devi vs Ram Sipahi on 6 June, 2024

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                          AT J A B A L P U R

                                                                   BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA

                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 597 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.   SMT. GIRJA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI
                           AMAR BAHADUR SINGH AGED ABOUT 45
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION - AGRICULTURIST, R/O
                           VILLAGE CHITTI, P.S. SEMARIYA, TEHSIL
                           SEMARIYA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)




                                                                                              .....APPELLANT

                           ( B Y S H R I B . K . S H U K L A - A D V O C AT E F O R A P P E L L A N T )

                           AND

                           1.  RAM    SIPAHI,   S/O  RAMSAKHA
                           BEHALIYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION - AGRICULTURIST

                           2.  MOHAN SINGH S/O SURAJDEEN
                           SINGH BAHALIYA, AGED ABOUT 50
                           YEARS,
                           BOTH ARE R/O VILLAGE CHITTI,
                           TEHSIL SEMARIYA DISTRICT REWA
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS

                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 01-07-2024
17:13:15
                                                                              2

                                  Reserved on:                          04.04.2024

                                  Pronounced on:                        06.06.2024

                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  This Second Appeal having been heard on admission and reserved for
                           order, coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra
                           pronounced the following:

                                                                       ORDER

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 in RCA No.700090/2018 by Additional District Judge, Sirmaur, District Rewa by which the appellant's appeal has been dismissed and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by which the plaintiff/appellant's suit for declaration of ownership of the Tractor bearing registration No.MP-17-D-8032 and the trolley bearing registration No.MP-17-D-8033 along with cultivator seed drill and thresher was dismissed.

2. The case before the Trail Court was that the plaintiff's husband Amar Bahadur Singh purchased a Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher on the ground that the tractor agricultural apparatus were purchased by her husband deceased Amar Bahadur Singh in his life time on loan provided by Allahabad Bank Semaria Branch and deceased Amar Bahadur Sind has paid the loan amount to the Bank. Defendant No.1 was driver of the vehicle and defendant No.2 was also working on that Tractor and the income from the operation of the tractor was given to deceased Amar Bahadur Singh but unfortunately on

06.06.2001 Amar Bahadur Singh expired on that the defendant stop the payment of income from the tractor and also not gave the details of the income and not returned the tractor and the agricultural apparatus. The plaintiff issued the notice through his counsel on 26.03.2004 but inspite of that tractor and trolley were not returned. The complaints was made in Police Station, Semaria on 10.12.2003 and 19.01.2004 but no action, hence, he filed the suit. The trial Court has dismissed the suit which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, hence, this second appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant Shri B.K. Shukla on admission.

4. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that he has proposed the following substantial questions of law :-

i. Whether, the Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Courts have erred in dismissing the suit ? ii. Whether, learned trial Court had recorded the contradictory finding regarding to the ownership of the Tractor Trolley ?

iii. Whether, learned Trial Court has not framing the issues regarding the joint ownership and possession of the Tractor and Trolley in the name of the late Amar Bahadur Singh and Mohan Singh, is justify ? iv. Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse ?

v. Any other substantial question of law which arises at the time of arguments, that may be raised at the time of argument ?

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has recorded contradictory findings on the ownership of tractor and trolley. The Tractor and trolley were solely purchased by deceased Amar

Bahadur Singh and after his death the plaintiff became the owner of the tractor, trolley and other agricultural accessories but that was not returned to the plaintiff, thus the respondents have committed the breach of the trust as they were only employed in the vehicle and the tractor and trolley was handed over to them as workers. He has further argued that as stated by the defendant, they fail to prove that any amount was paid regarding the tractor and defendant also failed that the tractor and the trolley were purchased by them jointly, hence, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has wrongly dismissed the suit.

6. I have gone through the record, first of all in this case as per plaint averments, the suit was filed only for the declaration and the suit was valued Rs.1,000/- and for the recovery of Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher the suit was valued Rs.1000/- and thus total Rs.260/- amount of court fee was paid. The plaintiff has not clearly disclosed the value/cost of the Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher when the suit was filed. She has simplicitor filed the suit for the declaration and possession of the property whereas as per Section 7 (iii) of the Court Fee Act. The plaintiff was duty bound to pay the Court fees on the value of Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher on the date when the suit was filed.

7. Further more from the plaint averment, it is stated that the Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher and other agricultural accessories were purchased by her husband deceased Amar Bahadur Singh and after his death, her name was transferred as an owner in the registration certificate of the tractor and the trolley. The plaintiff has never disclosed that any amount was paid by the defendant regarding to the cost or the possession of the disputed tractor and trolley by the defendants.

8. The defendants have stated in their written statement that Amar Bahadur Singh and Ram Sipahi defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were jointly the owner of the Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher and with the mutual consent the tractor was registered in the name of Amar Bahadur Singh. Amar Bahadur Singh was the owner of 1/3rd share of the Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher.

9. The Panchayat was convened and as per the Panchayat, it was agreed that the respondent shall pay Rs.88,400/- to the plaintiff and as per agreement on 26.12.2002 Rs.40,000/- were paid and on 16.06.2003 Rs.5,000/- further paid and Rs.37,626/- remaining to be paid that was paid after four to five months of the Panchayat and the plaintiff appeared before the RTO, Rewa on 16.01.2004 and has submitted an affidavit with consent by which the tractor and trolley were transferred in the name of defendant on 09.02.2004.

10. The First Appellate Court has considered the above facts in its judgment. In para-11 of the cross examination, the plaintiff was not able to disclose the fact that on what cost the tractor was purchased. She has expressed his ignorance that the Panchayat was convened in his Village regarding the tractor and trolley and Sarpanch of Dev Gaon Kala, Jagmohan Singh was present or not. She has also expressed her ignorance that the cost of the Tractor, Trolley along with cultivator Seed Drill and Thresher were ascertained Rs.1,50,000/- and regarding the Panchayat she has denied all the suggestions but she has admitted in para -18 of her cross-examination that Rs.40,000/- was paid before the five years from the date of cross-examination. She has also admitted that on 26.12.2002 Rs.40,000/- were paid she has also admitted that after six months of this payment Rs.5,000/- were paid to her and denied the suggestions that only Rs.37,626/- were unpaid.

She has also denied the suggestion that Rs.37,626/- was to pay after four to five months after second payment. She has also denied the suggestion that she went to RTO Office Rewa and submitted her affidavit of consent and stated that if the name was transferred on 09.02.2004 in favour of Mohanlal, she has no knowledge perhaps this was done behind her back. She has also denied the fact on 05.12.2003 she has handed over the possession of the Tractor and Trolley.

11. The defendant has proved that by examining Ravindra Nath Nayak (PW-7) that on 30.12.1999, Rs.1,89,000/- loan was sanctioned in the joint name of Mohanlal (respondent) and deceased Amar Bahadur Singh and 14.12 acres land of Mohanlal was mortgaged in the Bank and with the consent of the parties, vehicle was registered in the name of Amar Bahadur Singh and tractor loan was liquidated by Mohanlal.

12. Thus, it is proved that the loan was taken jointly by the appellant's husband and respondent. From the Ex.D-3, it is clear that on 26.12.2002, plaintiff has received Rs.40,000/- and on that Rs.48,300/- were remaining to be paid as per agreement between the parties. On 16.06.2003, Rs.5000/- were further paid and thus in this regard document Ex.D-4 that has been proved by Pancham Singh (PW-3), Ram Bhuvan Singh (PW-4), Devlal (PW-5), Brijnandan Singh (PW-6). The Panchayatnama (Ex.D-4) is proved and as per that Panchayat was convened and in that Panchayat, the existing cost of the Tractor and accessories was assessed and it was ascertained that the defendant shall pay Rs.88,400/- to the plaintiff as the cost of the Tractor, trolley and accessories and in pursuance to that Rs.40,000/- were paid on 26.12.2002 and Rs.5000 were paid on 16.06.2003 and this fact was suppressed by the plaintiff in her plaint and Court statement. It was only Rs.37,626/- to be paid to the plaintiff and as per the defendant, they have

paid amount to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has not filed the suit for recovery of that amount and wrongly filed the suit only for the declaration and the possession and for that the value assessed by the plaintiff is against the her averment of the cost in the plaint.

13. Thus, trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has clearly and elaborately discussed the evidence and on factual ground has found that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of the property and possession of the disputed Tractor, Trolley and accessories there of. No any substantial question of law has been raised, all the questions that have been raised are only regarding to the fact. On the argument on admission, they fail to demonstrate the perversity in the judgment of the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. Thus on the concurrent finding, both the Courts have dismissed the suit and after appreciation, this Court is of the view that trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has dismissed the suit after appreciating the material available on the record, hence, no substantial question of law is involved in the case, hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

14. With the copy of order, record of Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court be returned back.

15. Record of this appeal be consigned to the record room.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE

DPS