Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Singh vs Surendra Kumar on 4 September, 2018
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.22 of 2016
Rajendra Singh ...Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant
Versus
1. Surendra Kumar
2. Jitendra kumar
3. Bikash Rai Mahto ....Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
-----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.
----
07/04.09.2018: Heard the counsel for the appellant.
The appellant is the original plaintiff.
The plaintiff has instituted a suit being Title Suit No.32 of 2008 for the following reliefs:
(a) For a decree for declaration of plaintiff's subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint.
(b) For a decree for declaration that the regd. Sale deed no. 5455 dt. 30.11.05 executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of the defendant no.1 and 2 for transfer of the suit land described in schedule 'B' is ab initio, void, illegal, inoperative and not binding and the same is liable to be annulled.
(c) For recovery of possession of the suit land by demolition of construction and structure made by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 at their own cost.
(d) For permanent injunction.
(e) For cost of the suit.
(f) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may
be found entitled to under law and equity.
The trial court has framed various issues, which are as follows:
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and for the relief sought?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action for this suit?
(3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and by the Provision of Specific Relief Act?
(4) Whether description of suit land is wrong? (5) Whether the suit is under valued? (6) Whether the plaintiff has any right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule "B" of the plaint?
(7) Whether the sale deed no. 5455 dt. 30.11.05 is void, abinitio, illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff?
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as sought or any other reliefs?
The parties have led following evidences:
P.W.1: Dayashankar Jha, P.W.2: Krishna Pradhan, P.W.3:
Shailesh Kumar Singh, P.W.4: Rajendra Singh (Plaintiff), P.W.5: Mintu Karzy, P.W.6: Tapan Kumar Mahapatra, P.W.7: Nagendra Singh.
Ext.1- Registered sale deed no. 3894 dt.23.12.2000. Ext.2- Pleader notice dt. 22.12.05. Ext.3- Postal receipt no. 5154 dt.24.12.05. Ext.4 & 4/1- Three rent receipts in respect of purchased land.
Ext. 5- Letter dt.17.07.06 addressed to Circle Officer, Gamharia.
Ext. 6- Carbon copy of letter dt. 23.11.05 by plaintiff to the Circle Officer (with objection). Ext.1/1 & 1/2- Are two sale deeds by which the defendant no.1 and 2 purchased land from defendant no.3. Ext. 7- Correction slip of Case No. 356/01-02. Ext. 8- Notice of Demarcation Case No. 01/06-07. D.W.1- Anil Kumar Singh, D.W.2- Satya Kinker Acharya, D.W.3- Sangita Sharma, D.W.4- Durga Prasad Nayak, D.W.5- Surendra Kumar ( Def.No.1) and D.W.- Bikash Kumar Mahato.
Ext. A- Original Sale Deed no. 5455 dt. 30.11.05. Ext. B, B/1 and B/2 - Are three rent receipts. Ext. C- Complete enquiry report of Demarcation Case No. 01/06-07.
Ext. D- Anchal report of Demarcation Case No.01/06-07. Ext.E- Trace Map.
Ext.F- Writing and Signature of Raghunath Rajak on the paper after demarcation.
Ext. G- Order sheet in Demarcation Case No. 01/06-07. Ext. A/1- Certified copy of registered sale deed no. 3139 dt. 23.12.99.
Ext. H & H/1 - Original correction slip of Mutation Case No. 919/05-06 and 229/2000-01.
Ext. G/1- Order sheet of Demarcation Case No. 02/02-03. Ext.I- Advocate's notice to the defendant no.1 dt. 23.12.05.
The basic issue is whether the plaintiff has any right, title and interest over the Schedule-B land.
The trial court, after discussing the evidences, as indicated above, has given finding against the plaintiff and accordingly, suit has been dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed an appeal being Title Appeal No.02 of 2012. The appellate court has re-appreciated the evidences and issues framed by the trial court.
The finding recorded by the trial has been affirmed and accordingly, decree has been confirmed.
It has been specifically held by the appellate court that Ext.1, which is registered Sale Deed No.3894 dated 23.12.2000, through which the plaintiff has purchased Schedule-A land, measuring an area 2240 Sq. Ft. i.e. 40' x 56'. The plaintiff himself has admitted in his evidence that he has constructed house having dimension of 56' in length x 39' in breath and that comes to 2184 Sq. Ft. while dimension of Schedule-B land is 1'3"
x 56' which comes to 70 Sq. Ft.
Taking area into consideration as stated by the plaintiff himself, the appellate court has come to the conclusion that Schedule-B land is not part of Schedule-A land, rather plaintiff is in possession of the Schedule-A land, which is actual dimension of the land, which has been purchased.
In view of the above discussion and concurrent finding by both the courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal.
Accordingly, present second appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi/-