Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Smt Lalita Devi Kejriwal And Ors on 3 May, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 JHARKHAND 7, 2018 (2) SCC 397, 2017 (4) AJR 448, (2018) 184 ALLINDCAS 676 (JHA), 2018 (129) ALR SOC 34 (SC), 2018 (187) AIC (SOC) 9 (SC), (2018) 1 ALL WC 518, (2018) 1 CURCC 52, (2018) 1 JCR 347 (SC), (2018) 1 JLJR 71, 2018 (1) KLT SN 77 (SC), (2018) 1 PAT LJR 161, (2018) 1 SCT 269, (2018) 1 SERVLR 682, (2018) 1 TAC 378, (2019) 2 ESC 626, 2019 (9) ADJ 59 NOC
Author: D.N.Patel
Bench: D.N. Patel, Ratnaker Bhengra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
I.A. No. 5932 of 2015
With
I.A. No. 3061 of 2016
With
L.P.A. No. 620 of 2015
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi;
2. The Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi. ...Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Lalita Devi Kejriwal, W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Kejriwal, resident of
Rani Sati Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, Ranchi, PO Hehal, PS
Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi.
2. Smt. Sangita Devi Kejriwal, W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, resident
of Rani Sati Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, Ranchi, PO Hehal, PS
Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi.
3. Shri Pawan Kumar Kejriwal, S/o Charanjee Lal Kejriwal, resident of
Rani Sati Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, Ranchi, PO Hehal, PS
Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi.
4. Shri Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, S/o Shri Satya Narayan Kejriwal, resident
of Rani Sati Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, Ranchi, PO Hehal, PS
Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. ...Respondents
---
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, SC (L&C)
Mr. Vineet Prakash, JC to SC (L&C)
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
---
13/ Dated 03.05.2017:
(Oral Order)
Per D.N.Patel, J.
[I.A. No. 5932 of 2015]
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonaton of delay of 1212 days in preferring the
instant Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons
stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph No.4, there
are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay of 1212 days in
preferring the Letters Patent Appeal.
3. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring in the Letters
Patent Appeal with cost of Rs.5000/-. This amount will be deposited by
the appellants before the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyay
Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi, within a period of eight weeks from today. This
amount shall be utilised for " Access to Justice" programme. Copy of this
2
order will be sent by Registrar General of this Court, to the Member
Secretary, Jharkhand Legal Services Authority, Ranchi.
4. I.A. No. 5932 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of.
[L.P.A. No. 620 of 2015]
5. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of
Jharkhand, who is respondent No.1 in the writ petition bearing WP(C)
No. 1027 of 2008. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single
Judge vide order dated 27.04.2012 and hence, the present Letters
Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand, who is the
original respondent No.1.
6. FACTUAL MATRIX
• There are five chunks of land, in question, which are Plot/Khesra
No.43, measuring 3.40 Acres, Plot/Khesra No.43, measuring 1.29 Acres,
Plot/Khesra No.43, measuring 4.23 Acres, Plot/Khesra No.43, measuring
2.86 Acres and Plot/Khesra No.43/1, measuring 0.70 Acres &
Plot/Khesra No.44/1, measuring 0.11 Acres, Total 12.59 Acres ( 55396
Sq. Meters), pertaining to Khata No. 176 within Mouza- Hehal, Town and
District- Ranchi, as narrated in Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters
Patent Appeal, which is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi. This narration has also been mentioned in para-2(a) of the
memo of Letters Patent Appeal.
• Aforesaid five lands are disputed in this Letters Patent Appeal,
which was originally owned by Shri Arun Nath Sahdeo . This original
landlord has expired, as submitted by the counsel for the respondents.
Shri Arun Nath Sahdeo was having two sons, namely, Deepak and Dilip.
• Out of two sons of Shri Arun Nath Sahdeo, Deepak has also
expired and the so-called wife of this Deepak, namely, Nameeta Nath
Sahdeo, whose name was never mutated in the revenue records and
though her exclusive ownership was in belligerent stage, respondents
ventured to purchase all the aforesaid five lands, at their own peril and
risk, from the so-called wife of Deepak, namely, Nameeta Nath Sahdeo.
This is a bone of contention between the parties.
• The respondents are belonging to Ranchi city, within the State of
Jharkhand and the lands were situated in the capital city of State of
Jharkhand and despite the amendment by Bihar Amendment Act, 1991
3
in Indian Registration Act, 1908, especially under Section 30 thereof,
which is pertaining to the place of registration, deliberately and with an
ulterior motive, the so-called sale deeds from the seller - Nameeta Nath
Sahdeo, who is not even the owner of the property at all, were registered
at Bombay.
• Second branch of Arun Nath Sahdeo is Dilip, whose wife Smt.
Rupa Nath Sahdeo has lot of grievances about the so-called sale
deeds. Similarly, son of Dilip has also several grievances against the so-
called sale deeds entered into between Nameeta Nath Sahdeo and the
respondents (original petitioners), for which, five suits are pending in the
Civil Court at Ranchi. Thus, ownership of Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, for all
the five plots is in dispute. Despite these facts, she has sold away all the
five plots to the respondents. Nobody can pass better title than what he/
she is having.
• Be that as it may, application was preferred in the year 2005, after
the purchase of the property in the year 2000 by the respondents
(original petitioners) for mutation entries to be carried out in their names.
Again they have waited for five long years. So-called registration was
made at Bombay in the year 2000, whereas, the application for mutation
was preferred in the year 2005 and the Circle Officer, Ranchi allowed the
application for mutation to be carried out in the names of the
respondents in the year 2005.
• These entries were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
vide order dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters
Patent Appeal).
• Respondents approached Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State of
Jharkhand for setting aside the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi and without any application of mind, Secretary of
the Revenue Department, has quashed and set aside the order passed
by the Deputy Commissioner. Secretary has passed the order on
30.07.2007, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.
• Now the respondents preferred WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 with a prayer that the State of Jharkhand should accept the rent from the respondents (original petitioners) for the aforesaid five lands.
4• In the meantime, wife of Dilip, Rupa Nath Sahdeo had also preferred WP(C) No. 6140 of 2007 questioning the right, title and interest of Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, who has sold away all the lands to the respondents. This writ petition was dismissed for default vide order dated 27.04.2012 and thereafter, Rupa Nath Sahdeo, wife of Dilip has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Petition being CMP No. 305 of 2012 for restoration of WP(C) No. 6140 of 2007 , which is pending before this Court.
• As the writ petition preferred by the respondents was allowed by the learned Single Judge being WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2012, Rupa Nath Sahdeo has also preferred Civil Review No. 48 of 2012. The said Civil Review application was dismissed for default.
• Rupa Nath Sahdeo has preferred LPA No. 263 of 2013 against the order passed in WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2012. The said LPA was dismissed for not removing the office defects.
• It appears from the facts of the case that no care has been taken by the respondents (original petitioners) before purchasing the land, in question, whether seller of the lands, namely, Nameeta Nath Sahdeo was at all the owner of the property in question. Secondly, neither Dilip Nath Sahdeo was party to the sale deed nor legal heirs of Deepak Nath Sahdeo were parties to the sale deeds. Even the suits are going on between the two branches of late Arun Nath Sahdeo in the Civil Court at Ranchi and hence, mutation carried out by the Circle Officer, Ranchi was quashed and set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 19.09.2005 and without any power vested under any law, Secretary of the Revenue Department, has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner only because an application has come from Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellants-State:
7. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that original owner of the 5 property, in question, Shri Arun Nath Sahdeo, who was having two sons, Deepak and Dilip. Elder son Deepak has expired and thereafter one Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, who is claiming herself to be a wife of Deepak, has sold away all the five properties to the respondents (original petitioners). The properties is situated at Ranchi, State of Jharkhand and the respondents (original petitioners) are also residing at Ranchi, State of Jharkhand, but, for the reasons best known to the respondents and for the reasons best known to Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, those five sale deeds were registered at Bombay, which is in violation of amended Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Indian Registration Act, 1908, especially Section 30 thereof was amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1991.
8. Counsel for the State has further submitted that not only the registration of the document was done illegally at Bombay but also, thereafter, respondents (original petitioners) waited for five long years, just for nothing and in the year 2005, application was preferred for mutation entries by the respondents. Normally, those who are purchasing the properties, they will immediately go for mutation entries, if they have nothing to hide.
9. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that the Circle Officer, Ranchi allowed the mutation entries to be carried out in the name of the respondents (original petitioners). This order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer vide order dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). This order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 19.09.2005 is under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, who has sold away all the five plots to the respondents, was never the owner of the property at all. Her name was never mutated in the revenue entries. In fact, Arun Nath Sahdeo, who was having two sons Deepak and Dilip and therefore, firstly the names of two sons should have been mutated in the revenue records and thereafter, if Deepak has expired, the legal heirs of Deepak should have been mutated in the revenue entries. It appears from the facts of the case that, 6 as submitted by the counsel for the appellants, Nameeta Nath Sahdeo is not a wife of Deepak. This aspect of the matter is also in highly dispute.
This dispute has been raised by another branch of Arun Nath Sahdeo i.e. legal heirs of Deepak. Suits are pending, filed by branch of Dilip and hence, no error was committed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Circle Officer, Ranchi.
10. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that respondents (original petitioners) have moved an application before Hon'ble the Chief Minister of State of Jharkhand. A person or persons, for purchasing such huge landed property at Ranchi, who is or are going for registration at Bombay, must also be aware of the legal proceedings, which can be carried out in a Court, instead of approaching the Hon'ble Chief Minister, but, recourse was taken by the respondents before Hon'ble the Chief Minister, who, in his turn, sent the papers to the Secretary, Revenue Department and in the same breath, looking to the colour of the application, preferred by the respondents before Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Jharkhand, without any power vested in the Secretary, Revenue Department, he quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-1 to memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) vide order dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).
11. Counsel for both the sides are unable to point out that under which provision, Secretary, Revenue Department has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner because normally for mutation entries, proper procedures are to be initiated by the parties.
12. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the respondents preferred WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 with a prayer that the State of Jharkhand be directed to accept the payment of revenue for the aforesaid five lands and the learned Single Judge without appreciating the facts that Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, who has sold away the properties to the respondents was never an exclusive owner of the properties at all. Moreover, properties are situated in Ranchi, respondents are residing at Ranchi and the documents were registered at Bombay and after five long years from the date of sale deed, an application for mutation was 7 preferred. Without drawing the attention to these facts, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that Rupa Nath Sahdeo, who is wife of Dilip had preferred WP(C) No. 6140 of 2007, which was dismissed for default, for restoration of which, CMP is already pending before this Court. Moreover, as many as five suits have been preferred by the legal heirs of Dilip. They are Title Suit Nos. 449, 450, 451, 452 & 453 of the year 2012, pending before the Civil Court at Ranchi. There are innumerous objections raised by the legal heirs of Dilip about so-called wife of Deepak, namely, Nameeta Nath Sahdeo. Allegations have gone to the level that Nameeta Nath Sahdeo is not a wife at all of Deepak nor her name was mutated in the revenue entries for the lands, which are secretly sold away by her and the documents, which are registered at Bombay in the year 2000, for which, mutation entry was preferred in the year 2005. All these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, preferred by the respondents and hence, judgment and order passed in WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 dated 27.04.2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Arguments canvassed by counsel for the respondents (original petitioners):
14. Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that registered sale deeds, which are five in number, which were entered into between Nameeta Nath Sahdeo and the respondents (original petitioners), are the basis of the order, passed by the learned Single Judge and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents (original petitioners).
15. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Dilip, who is a brother of Deepak, has already got his share / consideration from Nameeta Nath Sahdeo and therefore, Dilip Nath Sahdeo has also confirmed the sale vide letter dated 10.10.2002.
16. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Dilip Nath Sahdeo has confirmed the sale and now, nothing is left out in the matter because 8 Nameeta Nath Sahdeo has entered into sale deeds, which are registered documents and later on, the State of Jharkhand has also taken differential duties because original documents were registered at Bombay. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that Rupa Nath Sahdeo, wife of Dilip has preferred WP(C) No. 6140 of 2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2012. Against which, CMP is pending before this Court. Similarly, she has also preferred LPA No. 263 of 2013 against the judgment and order passed in WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.10.2014.
17. Counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that names of the respondents have been mutated in the revenue records by the order of the Circle Officer, which was quashed and set aside by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure- 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and this order has been quashed and set aside by the order of the Secretary, Revenue Department dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Thus no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 and in giving direction to these appellants (original respondents) to accept the revenue from the respondents for the aforesaid five lands.
18. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) was an ex-parte order and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the respondents (original petitioners). Hence, no error has been committed by the Secretary, while passing the order dated 30.07.2007, in remanding the matter before the Deputy Commissioner to decide afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondents (original petitioners).
Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
REASONS
19. Having heard the counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 1027 of 2008 on 274.2012 mainly for the following facts and reasons :-
9(i) The properties, in question, are as many as five landed properties.
The narration of which has also been given in the factual matrix in this judgment. The original owner of the property is one Shri Arun Nath Sahdeo. He was having two sons viz.-
(1) Deepak Nath Sahdeo;
(2) Dilip Nath Sahdeo.
(ii) Respondents purchased the property from one Nameeta Nath Sahdeo. Nobody knows whether she was owner of the property in question or not in the eye of law .The name of Nameeta Nath Sahdeo was never mutated in the revenue entries for the aforesaid five landed properties. All the landed properties, which were sold away by Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, are situated at Ranchi. Respondents are also residing at Ranchi. Nonetheless, for any reason whatsoever or may be for some ulterior motives, five sale deeds were registered at Bombay. This registration is in utter violation of Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act 1908 as amended by Bihar Amended Act, 1991. By virtue of this amendment in Indian Registration Act,1908, the documents of sale or transfer of the properties must be registered at the place where the immovable property is situated. Despite this Bihar Amendment Act, 1991, documents were registered at Bombay for the lands situated at Ranchi;
(iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that documents were registered on 15.9.2000 at Bombay. For any reason whatsoever, respondents maintained stoic silence. In the year 2005, application for mutation was preferred before the Circle Officer, Ranchi, which was allowed by the said officer. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi quashed and set aside this order passed by the Circle Officer. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). It appears that being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 19.9.2005 instead of taking recourse to prefer an appeal or revision etc. under the revenue laws, an application was preferred before Hon'ble the Chief Minister, State of Jharkhand and ultimately, Secretary, Revenue Department, quashed and set aside the order passed by the 10 Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, in which, branch of Dilip Nath Sahdeo was never heard at all. Nameeta Nath Sahdeo is claiming to be the wife of Deepak Nath Sahdeo but Deepak Nath Sahdeo is having another brother Dilip. Without giving any opportunity of being heard to Dilip Nath Sahdeo or his wife or his sons or daughter, Secretary, Revenue Department, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The order of this Secretary, Revenue Department is dated 30.7.2007 (Annexure-2 to the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). It ought to be kept in mind that Nameeta Nath Sahdeo is not an owner of the properties at all in the eye of law, much less exclusive owner. These lands have been secretly sold away by her to the respondents. Nobody can pass better title than what he/she is having and nobody can get a better title than what seller is having. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents and hence the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1027 of 2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside;
(iv) It appears that the respondents were in hot hurry to take away the property by hook or by crook. Neither Dilip nor his wife nor his children were the parties to the sale deeds which were registered at Bombay for the properties situated at Ranchi. Nobody knows whether Dilip Nath Shadeo or his wife or his legal heirs were given any consideration from the respondents(original petitioners). Everything has been done by the respondents in a suspicious manner viz.,
(a) The name of Nameeta Nath Shadeo was not in the revenue entries. Five different lands ad-measuring total area of 12.59 acres have been purchased from such a person. Normally, such huge lands will not be purchased without verifying the revenue entries, but, it appears that everything has been done as a pre-planed and well- designed action;
(b) Though the properties are situated at Ranchi, though the seller and purchasers (respondents) are residing at Ranchi, five sale deeds have been registered at Bombay, for the reasons best known to the seller - Nameeta Sahdeo and for the reasons best known to the respondents (original petitioners);11
(c) This type of registration at Bombay of the sale deeds of the lands situated in Ranch, the State of Jharkhand, is in violation of Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act 1908 which is amended by the Bihar amendment Act,1991;
(d) Those five sale deeds do not bear the signature of the Dilip Nanth Sahdeo who is son of Arun Nath Sahdeo nor those five sale deeds bear signature of legal heirs of Dilip Nath Sahdeo;
(e) It appears that some letter is relied upon by the respondents (original petitioners) , which is alleged to have been written by Dilip Nath Sahdeo, which confirms the sale vide letter dated 10.10.2002.This documents is also highly disputed document, looking to suits, which are as many as five in number preferred by son of Dilip which is pending before the Civil Court, at Ranchi and looking to the WP(C) No. 6140 of 2007 preferred by Rupa Nath Sahdeo, who is wife of Dilip;
(f) After the registration of sale deeds dated 15.9.2000, for five long years, purchasers/respondents(original petitioners) have never applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Normally, purchasers of such a huge properties, which totally ad-measures 12.59 Acres, by legal documents will immediately move for mutation entires in their names, but, in the facts of the present case, such application was preferred after five long years;
(g) Order was passed by the Circle Officer, Ranchi for entering the names of the respondents into the revenue records for the aforesaid five plots. This order was quashed and set aside by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. This order is dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order, instead of preferring any appeal or revision under revenue laws, respondents preferred an application before Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and it appears that the Secretariat of Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Jharkhand must have made an endorsement to the Secretary, Revenue Department and the Secretary, Revenue Department, without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to Dilip or his wife or his legal heirs, quashed 12 and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal;
(h) In fact, Secretary, Revenue Department, should have heard the affected parties. Dilip is not only the son of Arun Nath Sahdeo. Secretary should have verified, whether Nameeta Nath Sahdeo is the owner of the properties or not? Secretary, Revenue Department should have verified, whether Nameeta Nath Sahdeo is the wife of Deepak or not? Secretary, Revenue Department should have verified, whether Dilip has any brother or sister or not? Secretary, Revenue Department should have verified, why documents were registered at Bombay for the lands situated at Ranchi and after long five years, mutation entries application was preferred. A man with a common sense and reasonable prudence would have asked this question to himself. Secretary, Revenue Department has lost sight of these facts and this very order has become the basis of writ petition preferred by the respondents being WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has also lost sight of the aforesaid crucial aspects of the matter and hence, judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 dated 27.04.2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside;
(v) Respondents (original petitioners) in their writ petition being WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 have never joined Dilip Nath Sahdeo or his wife or his legal heirs as respondents. This is a deliberate action. Most vital and necessary parties have not been joined at all, who is also the co- owner of the property, in question. Thus respondents (original petitioners) have purchased 12.59 acres (55396 sq. mt.) of land by virtue of five sale deeds. Persons, who are purchasing such huge and vast land in a capital city of State of Jharkhand, will always purchase the property after thorough and proper check and more particularly, after some legal advice also. Ignorance of law has no chance in such type of purchases. Everything appears to be deliberate and pre-planned action on the part of the respondents (original petitioners). Nothing is by way of an error much less by bona fide error. Just for the sake of arguments, ignorance is being pleaded in the Court, for which, respondents are 13 falling in zone of costs;
(vi) Thus it appears that aforesaid five landed properties have been purchased by the respondents from a person, who is not even the owner of the properties. Name of seller of the properties- Nameeta Nath Sahdeo was never entered into revenue entries. Signature of Dilip Nath Sahdeo was never there in the sale deeds. There are allegation that Nameeta Nath Sahdeo is not even the wife of Deepak and therefore, perhaps, everything was done in a hot hurry, secretly and far away from Ranchi and even in the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008, filed by the respondents, neither Dilip nor his wife Rupa Nath Sahdeo nor the son of Dilip, namely, Lal Yashwardhan Nath Sahdeo has joined as a party;
(vii) Rupa Nath Sahdeo, wife of Dilip, has also filed WP(C) No. 6140 of 2007, in which, respondents (original petitioners) were parties, but, when respondents have filed writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008, which is after one year of writ petition, filed by Rupa Nath Sahdeo, wife of Dilip, she is not joined as party respondent. This is also a deliberate attempt made by the respondents for getting an order from this Court. This is nothing, but, the abuse of the process of the Court by the respondents (original petitioners);
(viii) So-called letter of Dilip Nath Sahdeo dated 10.10.2002, upon which reliance has been placed by the respondents (original petitioners), which is alleged to be a confirmation of sale between the Nameeta Nath Sahdeo and the respondents. This letter is never annexed with the writ petition, preferred by the respondents nor such type of letter is registered one. Such type of letter has no value in the eye of law. No consideration has been moved from the respondents to Dilip nor to his wife nor to this legal heirs, for the purchase of the properties, in question;
(ix) It appears that the respondents, have thoroughly ignored, Dilip who is also an the owner of the property, in question, from the very beginning, perhaps, Dilip must not be in a mood to sell the properties to the respondents at any cost or for any other such reason, hence respondents have consistently avoided Dilip, his wife and children. Respondents had, therefor dealing with Nameeta Nath Sahdeo, to 14 whom, they have given, the title of wife of Deepak, which is in dispute, looking to the legal proceedings, initiated by the wife of Dilip and the son of Dilip, by way of filing a writ petition and by way of five civil suits filed by them. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Gope and Others v. Harbans Narain Singh and Others AIR 1952 SC 205 has held as under:
"6. The general rule is that a person cannot by transfer or otherwise confer a better title on another than he himself has. A mortgagee cannot, therefore, create an interest in the mortgaged property which will ensure beyond the termination of his interest as mortgagee. Further, the mortgagee, who takes possession of the mortgaged property, must manage it as a person of ordinary prudence would manage it if it were his own; and he must not commit any act which is destructive or permanently injurious to the property; see Section 76 sub- clauses (a) & (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. It follows that he may grant leases not extending beyond the period of the mortgage; any leases granted by him must come to an end at redemption. A mortgagee cannot during the subsistence of the mortgage act in a manner detrimental to the mortgagor's interests such as by giving a lease which may enable the tenant to acquire permanent or occupancy rights in the land thereby defeating the mortgagor's right to khas possession; it would be an act which would fall within the provisions of Section 76, sub-clause (e), of the Transfer of Property Act."
(Emphasis Supplied) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Film Corpn. Ltd. v. Raja Gyan Nath, (1969) 3 SCC 79 has further observed that, "7. The first question to consider is this: Did the tenancy created by the mortgagee in possession survive the termination of the mortgagee interest so as to be binding on the purchaser? A general proposition of law is that no person can confer on another a better title than he himself has. A mortgage is a transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing repayment of a loan. A mortgagee's interest lasts only as long as the mortgage has not been paid off. Therefore on redemption of the mortgage the title of the mortgagee comes to an end. A derivative title from him must ordinarily come to an end with the termination of the mortgagee's title. The mortgagee by creating a tenancy becomes the lessor of the property but his interest as lessor is co-terminous with his mortgagee interest. Section 111(c) of the 15 Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property determines where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on, or his power to dispose of the same, extends only to the happening of any event -- by the happening of such event. The duration of the mortgagee's interest determines his position as the lessor. The relationship of lessor and lessee cannot subsist beyond the mortgagee's interest unless the relationship is agreed to by the mortgagor or a fresh relationship is recreated. This the mortgagor or the person succeeding to the mortgagor's interest may elect to do. But if he does not, the lessee cannot claim any rights beyond the term of his original lessor's interest. These propositions are well-understood and find support in two rulings of this Court in Mahabir Gope and Others v. Harbans Narain Singh and Asaram and Others v. Mst Ram Kali."
(Emphasis Supplied) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Another v. Administrative Officer and Others (2012) 12 SCC 133 has further held thus:
"32. The general rule of law is undoubted, that no one can transfer a better title than he himself possesses; nemo dat quod non habet. However, this rule has certain exceptions and one of them is, that the transfer must be in good faith for value, and there must be no misrepresentation or fraud, which would render the transactions as void and also that the property is purchased after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferee has the requisite power to transfer the said land, and finally that, the parties have acted in good faith, as is required under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Vide Asa Ram v. Ram Kali, SBI v. Rajendra Kumar Singh, CED v. Aloke Mitra, Hanumant Kumar Talesara v. Mohan Lal and State of Punjab v. Surjit Kaur.)"
(Emphasis Supplied) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company, (2013) 9 SCC 319 has further held as under:
"15. Section 90 of the Evidence Act is based on the legal maxims: nemo dat qui non habet (no one gives what he has not got); and nemo plus juris tribuit quam ipse habet (no one can bestow or grant a greater right, or a better title than he has himself). This section does away with the strict rules, as regards the requirement of proof, which are enforced in the case of private documents, by giving rise to a presumption of genuineness, in respect of certain documents that have reached a certain age. The period is to be reckoned backward from the date of the offering of the document, and not any subsequent date i.e. the date of decision of suit or appeal.16
Thus, the said section deals with the admissibility of ancient documents, dispensing with proof as would be required, in the usual course of events in a usual manner.
17. No person can claim a title better than he himself possesses. In the instant case, unless it is shown that M/s A. Allauddin & Sons had valid title, the respondent-plaintiff could not claim any relief whatsoever from court."
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order, passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1027 of 2008 dated 27.04.2012. Looking to the frivolous litigation, initiated by the respondents (original petitioners) cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is imposed upon the respondents, which will be deposited by the respondents before the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyay Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi, within a period of eight weeks from today. This amount will be utilized for the programmes- "Access to Justice". Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment and order to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi.
22. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.
23. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No. 3061 of 2016 also stands disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J) (Ratnaker Bhengra,J) NAFR SD/SB