Patna High Court
Munshi Gobind Prasad vs Lala Jagdeep Sahai on 21 March, 1922
Equivalent citations: 77IND. CAS.253, AIR 1924 PATNA 185
JUDGMENT Ross, J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who brought a suit alleging that he had purchased 2 bighas 18 kanals 10 dhurs of land in 1900 in the jarzi name of the defendant and that on the 7th May 1918 the defendant executed a deed of release in his favour but refused to deliver it.
2. The plaintiff claims declaration that the defendant was a benamidar purchaser in 1900 and prays for a decree ordering the defendant to deliver the deed of release to the plaintiff. In his written statement the defendant denied that he was the farzidar of the plaintiff or that the plaintiff had purchased the property.
3. He further alleged that the deed of release was intended to be a conveyance but the consideration had not been paid.
4. The learned Munsif thought the deed to be a genuine deed of release and gave a decree. The District Judge, however, first considered the question whether the plaintiff or the defendant was the beneficial owner of the property.
5. On this question lie finds that the defendant was the beneficial owner. He then went into the question of the Ladavi deed and held that if there was no consideration the defendant was not bound by the deed but that in fact the defendant had proved that he executed this document because the plaintiff promised to pay him Rs. 250 which had not been paid. He, therefore, modified the decree of the Munsif by ordering the plaintiff to pay Rs. 250 and the defendant to deliver the sale-deed on receipt of this amount. The contention, in second appeal is that under Section 92 of the Evidence Act no evidence was admissible to show any contemporaneous agreement for the payment of Rs. 250 and that as the execution of the deed is admitted, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for delivery thereof unconditionally. Now the learned District Judge has found as a fact that the defendant was the beneficial owner of this property.
6. The prayer in the plaint, therefore, must be refused and the only question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the delivery of this deed. Now it has been held repeatedly that the deed of relinquishment does not cover a title and that title to land cannot pass by admission when the Statute requires a deed.
7. Jadu Nath Poddar v. Rup Lal Poddar 33 C. 967 : 4 C.L.J. 22 : 10 C.W.N. 650 and Dharam Chand Boid v. Mouji Sahu 16 Ind. Cas. 440 : 16 C.L.J. 436). Here the parties have been trying to effect by release what could only be effected by conveyance. This document is of no effect whatsoever in. transferring the title from the defendant to the plaintiff.
8. The appeal is dismissed with costs.