Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Charan vs Johari Lal on 15 February, 2017
Author: G R Moolchandani
Bench: G R Moolchandani
(1 of 7)
[CFA-69/1996]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil First Appeal No. 69/1999
Ram Charan son of Shri Johari Lal, aged about 50 years, by caste
Jat, resident of Kautwadi, Village panchayat Bahadi, Tehsil and VP
Kathumar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Alwar.
----Appellant/Defendant
Versus
1. Johari Lal son of Pancha Ram (deceased)
1/1 Shri Inder Singh
1/2 Shri Bachhu Singh
1/3 Shri Roop Narayan
1/4 Shri Laxmi Narayan
All sons of late Shri Johari Lal, resident of Pachkui, Tehsil
Kathumar, District Alwar.
5. Smt. Tulsa Daughter of Late Shri Johari Lal, resident of
Ronpur, Kherli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar.
----Respondents/Plaintiffs
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur & Mr. Sanjay Bharti For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Sunda _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI JUDGMENT 15/02/2017 The appellant has assailed legality of judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Rajgarh Camp Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Civil Suit No.170/95 (140/92), whereby suit of the plaintiff/respondent Johari Lal is decreed.
2. In brief, the factual matrix of the case hinges upon ownership and possession of a tractor with trolley bearing registration No.RJA 7061, which stands in registered name of plaintiff/respondent Johari Lal under a hypothecation with State (2 of 7) [CFA-69/1996] Bank of India, Kherli towards borrowings, which was allegedly taken away by defendant/appellant Ram Charan against which an F.I.R No.26/91 was also lodged on 06/02/1991 and subsequently the plaintiff/respondent Johari Lal filed this suit seeking declaration with respect to the ownership of the said tractor, while rebutting pleadings, defendant denied claim contending that defendant/appellant Ramcharan was owner in possession of the said tractor with trolley after partition and further prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.
3. Learned trial Court after going through the pleadings of both the sides framed nine following issues :-
Þ¼1½ vk;k oknh lu~ 1976 ls yxkrkj VSªDVj vkj-ts-,-7061 dk cgSfl;r jftLVMZ vksuj ekfyd o dkfct jgk gS tks oknh us viuh iSnkdnkZ py&vpy lEifRr dh dekbZ o /ku ls iSnk fd;k gS\ &oknh ¼2½ vk;k izfroknh VsSªDVj vkj-ts-,-7061 e; Vªksyh dks oknh ds fjgk;'kh uksgjs okds xzke iapdqbZ ru ?kks"kjkuk ls pykdj o Hkxk dj cuh;r pksjh ekg izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls iwoZ ys x;k ftldh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-la[;k 26@91 Fkkuk [kSMyh ij ntZ gqbZ\ &oknh ¼3½ vk;k VSªDVj vkj-ts-,-7061 e; Vªksyh oknh o izfroknh rFkk nhxj yM+dksa ds chp pksjh dh fjiksVZ ntZ gksus ls 2 o"kZ iwoZ gq;s lu~ 1989 ds tsB ds efgus esa ?k: caVokjk esa izfroknh ds fgLls esa vk;kA ;fn ,slk gS rks nkok gktk dj D;k vlj gS\ &izfroknh ¼4½ vk;k oknh us vius yM+dksa ds chp fdlh Hkh lEifRr dk caVokjk ugha fd;k gS\ &&oknh ¼5½ vk;k oknh izfroknh dks QkStnkjh izdj.k esa lqiqnZukek ij fn;s gq;s VSªDVj vkj-ts-,s- 7061 e; Vªksyh ij okfil n[ky izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ &izfroknh ¼6½ vk;k oknh us dksbZ Qhl de pLik dh gS rFkk oknh ls dksVZ Qhl 2 yk[k :i;s ij dkfcy olwyh gS\ &izfroknh ¼7½ vk;k nkok dkfcy lekvr vnkyr gktk gS &izfroknh ¼8½ vk;k nkok vUnj e;kn is'k ugha gS\ ¼9½ nknjlhAÞ (3 of 7) [CFA-69/1996]
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that trial Court has fallen in error in passing impugned judgment, in fact, said tractor was purchased from the funds of Joint Hindu Family, so the title of the tractor cannot be seen in isolation, and appellant/defendant got it in partition despite trial Court did not appreciate evidence correctly and has wrongly passed the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside after allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has argued that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment because said tractor was purchased by respondent/plaintiff and it was duly entered in his name as a registered owner with RTO, all the expenditure, bills and contingent repair were borne by the plaintiff/respondent. Appellant side wrongly took away tractor of the respondent/plaintiff, so a F.I.R was also lodged for the same and the Court dealing with the release of said tractor has also handed over the said tractor in the Supardgi of plaintiff/respondent. There is no flaw at all in the findings of learned Trial Court, which are liable to be upheld and appeal be dismissed.
6. Heard submissions of both the sides, examined the impugned judgment and perused the record.
7. Examination of testimony shows that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing its case before the trial Court, being registered owner and actual buyer of the said tractor. Johari Lal PW.1 has specifically said that the said tractor was purchased by (4 of 7) [CFA-69/1996] him under bank borrowings, which too was paid by him and he has said that :
"l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd fookfnr VSªDVj thVj gS tks esjk gS] VSªDVj dks eSaus t;iqj ls [kjhn fd;k Fkk] [kjhn ds fy, cSad ls dtsZ ds :i, fy, Fks] dtkZ [ksMyh cSad ls fy;k Fkk] cSad dk dtkZ eSaus pqdk fn;k gSa] eSaus VSªDVj ls esgur djds dekdj dtkZ pqdk;kA esjs ikl lk<s lkr ch?kk tehu gS] blesa <kbZ ch?kk esjs firk dh gS] ckdh esjs ikl esgur dh nkch gqbZ gS] ;g tehu eq>s igys eagr us crkbZ Fkh tks esjs ikl gh dk'r esa jg xbZA esjs ikap yMds vkSj ,d yMdh gSA yMds bUnj] cPpw] jkepj.k] :iukjk;.k] y{ehukjk;.k gSa vkSj yMdh rqylk gSA yMdh rqylk dh 'kknh dj nh Fkh ysfdu mldk ifr lgh ugha Fkk blfy, vc rqylk gekjs ikl gh jgrh gS] jkepj.k dh 'kknh djhc 25 lky igys xzke dkaVokMh esa gqbZ] jkepj.k ds dksbZ lkyk ugha gS] jkepj.k djhc chlksa lky ls dkaVokMh esa gh jg jgk gS] jkepj.k ds llqj dh tehu jkepj.k ds ikl gS tks djhc 15&20 ch?kk tehu gksxh] jkepj.k dk llqj ej x;k gS] uRFkh pekj us esjs f[kykQ o esjs pkjksa yMdksa ds f[kykQ NqvkNwr dh fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ Fkh] fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ ml ckr dks djhc 12&13 lky gks x,] rc ge tekur djkus vyoj pys x, rks ihNs ls jkepj.k esjs lwus VSªDVj] Vksªyh dks pqjkdj ys x;k] bl ckr dks 7&8 lky gks x,A eSaus jkepj.k dks VSªDVj dk dksbZ caVokjk ugha fd;k FkkA eSaus VSªDVj dh fjiksVZ vyoj ,l-ih- lkgc dks ntZ djkbZ D;ksafd Fkkus okyksa us ugha yh] rc [ksMyh Fkkus ij eqdnek ntZ gqvkA iqfyl VSªDVj o Vªksyh dks tCr djds ykbZ rc vnkyr ls eq>s VSªDVj Vªksyh feysA jkepj.k us ml vkns'k dh vihy t;iqj dh] vihy esa VSªDVj dks lqiqnZxh ij jkepj.k dks nsus o eq>s VSªDVj ds fy, nkok djus ds vkns'k gq,A VSªDVj dk ekfyd eSa gWw vksj eSa gh ml VSªDVj dks j[kus dk vf/kdjh gWWwA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh lR;izfr iznlZ&1] udy vkns'k tekur iznlZ&2] udy vkns'k fn0 14-3-91 iznlZ&3] udy vknsf'kdk fn0 2-5-92 iznlZ&4] jlhn iznlZ&4] jlhn iznlZ&5] jlhn iznlZ&6] jlhn iznlZ&7] ejEer dk fcy iznlZ&8] fctkbZ e'khu [kjhnus dk fcy iznlZ&9] Mhty dh iphZ iznlZ&10 o iznlZ&11] chek jlhn iznlZ&12] ifjp; i= dk;kZy; iapk;r lfefr dBwej iznlZ&13] feL=h ds fcy iznlZ&14] iznlZ&15] jkt0LVsV ,xzks t;iqj dh jlhn iznlZ&16] ba';ksjsal dEiuh dh jlhn iznlZ&17] iznlZ&18] chek dh jlhn iznlZ&19 jkt0 LVsV bxzks b.M0 dh jlhn iznlZ&20] e'khu VwYl dh jlhn iznlZ&21] VSªDVj dk Vksdu iznlZ&22] VSªDVj dk fcy iznlZ&23] cSad dh jlhn uks MW~;wt iznlZ&24] Vªksyh ds feL=h dh jlhn iznlZ&25] cSad dk uksfVl iznlZ&26] Mhty dh jlhnsa iznlZ&27 yk0 32] feL=h dk fcy iznlZ&33] lfoZl dk jlhnsa iznlZ&34 o iznlZ&35 ekaxi= ljiap iapk;r jksuhtk iznlZ&36] udy tekcanh laor~ 2050 iznlZ&37 is'k fd, gSaA "
Nothing causing infirmity to the testimony has emerged from his cross-examination.
PW.2 Inder son of Johari has also said that tractor is Zeeter, which was purchased by his father 20 to 21 years back, (5 of 7) [CFA-69/1996] at that time, Ram Charan was residing at Kadwari and tractor was purchased through loan, which was paid by his father Johari.
DW.1Ramcharan though has said that the tractor was purchased collectively, but he has also said that it does not stand registered in his name and he did not ask for papers because they were never necessitated neither he asked his father to get the ownership transferred in his name nor submitted any such application before RTO for transfer of his name, he has also said that such transfers are effected on the basis of sale letter, which was not with him. He has also said that a partition had taken place in their family and through that partition he had been given tractor and trolley, said partition is said to be "oral", in this regard, testimony of DW2 Ramoti and DW.3 Jasya are important because both have said that the said partition was effected through "writing" and Ramoti has said that Johari and Ramcharan had signed on that, which makes the factum of said partition suspicious because Johari says it was oral whereas his family member witnesses avers that it was documented.
8. Entire documentary testimony relating to purchase letter of the said tractor, its registration with RTO and papers relating to insurance stands in the name of Johari, said tractor was released on 14/03/1991 in connection with F.I.R No.26/91 PS Khedli by the Court of JM First Class, Laxmangarh in favour of Johari, registered owner of the tractor with the observation :-
"gkykafd nksuksa i{kksa us vius leFkZu esa 'kiFk&i= ,oa vU; nLRkkost is'k fd;s gSaA ysfdu pwafd izdj.k esa vHkh vuqla/kku fd;k tkuk gSA vr% ekeys ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fuf'pr jk; izdV djuk mfpr ugha gS blds vykok bl (6 of 7) [CFA-69/1996] LVst ij i{kdkjksa ds vf/kdkjksa dks r; djus ds fy, vyx ls tkap fd;k tkuk Hkh mfpr ugha gSA ckdh Qfj;knh tksgjh tIr 'kqnk VSªDVj Vªksyh dk jftLVMZ vkWuj gSA VSªDVj Vªksyh ds la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifRr gksus ckcr~ dksbZ lcwr ugha gSA izkFkhZ jkepj.k us nks lky iwoZ gq, caVokjs esa Lo;a dks VSªDVj feyuk o rHkh ls ml ij dkfct gksuk crk;k gSA ysfdu bruh yEch vof/k rd VSªDVj mlds ikl jgus ij Hkh VSªDVj ls lacaf/kr fdlh dkxtkr esa mldk uke ntZ ugha gSA brus vgae caVokjs dk Hkh dksbZ fyf[kr lcwr ugha gSA fQj ;fn i{kdkjksa esa tk;nkn laca/kh fookn gS rks muds flfoy vf/kdkjksa dk fu.kZ; flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gS gks ldrk gS VSªDVj Vªksyh ys tkus esa vfHk;qDr jkepj.k dk csbZekuh iw.kZ vk'k; ugha jgk gks vkSj mldk ;g dR; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa ugh vkrk gks fQj Hkh mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tcfd izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr jkepj.k ds ikl VSªDVj ds LokfeRo dk dksbZ Js"Brj lcwr ugha gS rFkk ?kVuk ds laca/k esa Hkh vHkh vkxs vuqlU/kku fd;k tkuk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tIr 'kqnk VsªDVj mlds jftLVMZ vkWuj Qfj;knh tksgjh dh vfHkj{kk esa gh lqiqnZ fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA "
and this order was subsequently modified by learned High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.438/1991 with the observation :
"mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ,oa izdj.k ds rF;ksa dks ns[kus ls ;g Li"V gS fd jkepj.k o tkSgjh vkil esa firk iq= gS vkSj mues lEifRr ds ekeys esa fookn gS vkSj iqfyl us Hkh vuqla/kku ds mijkUr ;g ik;k gS fd i{kdkjkas esa vkil es nhokuh okn gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks funksZ"k ik;kA ;g Hkh fufoZokn gS fd iqfyl us VSªDVj o Vªksyh izkFkhZ ds dCts ls gh tIr dh Fkh ;|fi mldk iath;u tkSgjh vizkFkhZ ds uke ls gSA egt blfy, fd VSªDVj dk jftLVsª'ku tksgjh ¼vizkFkhZ½ ds uke ls gS VSªDVj o Vªksyh tkSgjh ¼vizkFkhZ½ dks lqiqnZxh ij fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrkA ;g fookn dh VSªDVj dk okLro esa ekfyd dkSu gS\ VSªDVj dks j[kuss dk vf/kdkj fdldks gS\ ;g fcUnqa nhokuh vnkyr gh r; djsxh vkSj bl nkf.Md izdj.k esa Qfj;knh }kjk izLrqr izksLVsLV ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k ugha fd;k tk ldkA vr% D;ksafd VSªDVj&Vªksyh dks iqfyl }kjk cjkenh izkFkhZ ds dCts ls dh xbZ Fkh] mls izkFkhZ dks gh lqiZnxh ij fn;k tkuk esjh jk; esa mfpr gksxkA"
Appellant/Defendant Ramcharan has not got any decree with respect to alleged partition and learned trial Court, while deciding the suit under appeal has adjudicated issue number four against defendant because defendant has failed to establish factum of partition.
Upon considering entire evidence and in view of discussions aforesaid, there appears no infirmity in the findings of learned trial Court. Indisputably the ownership and sale-letter of the said tractor is in the name of Johari Lal, who has stated that tractor was purchased by him under bank loan, which too was paid by him.
(7 of 7) [CFA-69/1996] Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conclusion and findings of learned trial Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence, is hereby dismissed.
Cost easy.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI)J. Sanjaysolanki, PA