Patna High Court
Firoz Khan @ Firoz Akhtar Khan & Ors vs Om Prakash Mahto & Ors on 15 May, 2012
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012
1/18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.585 of 2010
(Against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010 passed by
Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No. III, Saran at Chapra in Title
Appeal No.2 of 2009 reversing the judgment and decree dated
12.12.2008passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Munsif IV, Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No.60 of 2000).
=========================================================== Firoz Khan @ Firoz Akhtar Khan & Ors.
.... .... Defendants-Respondents-Appellants Versus Om Prakash Mahto & Ors.
.... .... Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate Mr. Waliur Rahman, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, Advocate Mr. Mahesh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. A. Prabhakhar, Advocate Mrs. Nikki Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO CAV JUDGMENT Date:15-05-2012 Mungeshwar 1. The defendants have filed the present Second Appeal Sahoo, J.
against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.III, Saran at Chapra in Title Appeal No.2 of 2009 reversing the trial court judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Munsif IV, Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No.60 of 2000.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No.60 of 2000 praying for permanent injunction against the defendant nos.1 to Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 2/18 5 in respect of the suit property mentioned in detail in the plaint. For the purpose of this Second Appeal, the facts as claimed by the plaintiff may be stated briefly that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff. The said suit plot nos.383 and 384 of Khata No.112 was recorded in R.S. Khatiyan in the name of Sukhdeo Koiree. Sukhdeo Koiree had a son, Atmaram Koiree. The plaintiff, Gobardhan Koiree is the son of said Atmaram Koiree. Khata No.79, plot no.382 was recorded in R.S. Khatiyan in the name of Mitthu Mahto whose grandson is Ram Ishwar Mahto, plaintiff no.2. R.S. Plot No.381 of Khata No.104 was recorded in the name of Lakhichand Koiree and plaintiff no.3 is the grandson of Lakhichand Koiree. The plaintiffs inherited the property from their ancestors and are continuing in peaceful possession as owner thereof. They were paying rent to ex- landlord and thereafter to the State of Bihar. The plaintiff also claimed title on the basis of adverse possession. The defendants claiming to be the heirs of ex-landlord, Anwar Khan are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff‟s filed the suit.
3. The defendant nos.1 to 5, appellants filed contesting written statement mainly contending inter alia that the recorded tenants Sukhdeo Koiree, Mitthu Koiree and Lakhichand Koiree were the karinda of the ex-landlord, Ram Sahay Sahu, who wrongly got Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 3/18 mentioned the names of his karinda in R.S. Khatiyan with respect to the suit land in collusion with survey officer although, they had no right, title, interest and possession over the land. According to the defendants, the suit land was recorded in cadastral survey khatiyan under Khata No.70 in the name of Mahanth Ram Ishwar Giri. On his death, his Chela Mahanth Ram Lakhan Giri came in possession over the property. Ram Lakhan Giri sold the disputed land in the name of Masomat Bibi Hasina, daughter-in-law of Umar Khan for Rs.1,000 and put her in possession. The landlord, Ram Sahay Sahu wrongly interfered in the purchased land and dispossessed from the suit property. Therefore, Umar Khan filed Title Suit No.186 of 1917 against Ram Sahay Sahu and others for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed in 1919. The ex- landlord, Ram Sahay Sahu and others filed Title Suit No.2 of 1919 in the court of District Judge, Chapra which was dismissed after hearing the parties in 1920. Umar Khan filed Execution Case No.384 of 1920 and obtained delivery of possession of the suit property. The delivery of possession was confirmed on 24.06.1920. Since thereafter Umar Khan and his heirs have been coming in peaceful possession over the suit land on payment of rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting to the State of Bihar. The ex-landlord filed return in the name of Umar Khan when the zamindari vested in the State of Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 4/18 Bihar. There were many 144 Cr.P.C. proceedings and mutation proceedings for opening Jamabandi filed by the parties. The plaintiff filed petition before C.O. for correction of Jamabandi being Jamabandi Case No.291 of 1999-2000 and wrongly obtained favourable order. The defendants filed Misc. Case No.22 of 2000 which was allowed and the Jamabandi No.33 was allowed to be continued in the name of the defendants. It may be mentioned here that the defendant no.6 intervened and filed a written statement and supported the plaintiff‟s case.
4. After trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff‟s suit holding that the defendant was put in possession on the basis of the decree of the court i.e., Exhibit I, J, K, L and N. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed title appeal being Title Appeal No.2 of 2009. The Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff‟s suit.
5. On 22.02.2012, while admitting this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:
I. Whether the Lower Appellate Court‟s judgment and decree is vitiated because of recording of finding that the suit land was not covered by the judgment and decree of Title Suit No.186 of 1917 when there was no dispute regarding the identity of the land involved in the present suit and earlier suit and that too without considering Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 5/18 Exhibit „Q‟ produced on behalf of the defendants? II. Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated for making a third case of Benami Transaction Act when there was neither pleading nor evidence in proof of the same and by misinterpreting the judgment of this court reported in 2007(4) PLJR 624 and when there is no dispute regarding title between the person in whose name the property stands and the ostensible owner, Umar Khan?
III. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated because of the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court is based on the cancellation of Jamabandi in the year 1999 and for consideration of the evidences which were inadmissible in the evidence?
IV. Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated on account of the fact that the finding of the Lower Appellate Court is with regard to the defects in the defence of the defendants and benefit has been given in favour of the plaintiff- respondent?
6. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey submitted that the learned Appellate Court wrongly held that the suit property involved in the earlier suit i.e., Title Suit No.186 of 1917 is not involved in the present title suit filed by the Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 6/18 plaintiff without considering Exhibit „Q‟. The learned counsel further submitted that after obtaining possession by Umar Khan in execution case, the ex-landlord filed a petition before the court of S.D.O. praying for commutation of rent which has been marked as Exhibit „Q‟. In the Exhibit „Q‟, the ex-landlord, Ram Sahay Sahu clearly admitted the filing of suit and appeal and taking delivery of possession by Umar Khan with respect to the suit properties. In the said application, the plots and khata numbers old and new have been detailed. Had the Lower Appellate Court considered this Exhibit „Q‟, the finding could not have been recorded by the Lower Appellate Court that the lands involved in suit of the year 1917 do not tally with the lands mentioned in the present suit. Further, there was no dispute about the identity of the land. So far second substantial question of law is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that there is no pleading regarding Benami Transaction either in the written statement or in the evidence of the defendant but the learned court below wrongly held that the defence of the defendant-appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Act by wrongly interpreting the decision of this court reported in 2007(4) PLJR 624. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Lower Appellate Court examined the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by D.C.L.R. whereby Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 7/18 the Jamabandi opened in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled and held that in the name of the plaintiff, Jamabandi was opened rightly and, therefore, decreed the suit. According to the learned counsel, opening of Jamabandi or granting of rent receipt do not create title or extinguish title and, therefore, merely because the Jamabandi has been opened in the name of the plaintiff, no finding can be recorded that he is in possession of the same in face of the Civil Court‟s decree of the year 1920. The learned counsel further submitted that in the entire judgment, the Lower Appellate Court considered the merit or demerit of the defendant‟s case without considering the merit of the plaintiff‟s case and decreed the plaintiff‟s suit recording a finding that the defendant did not produce either the plaint of the earlier suit or the return filed by the landlord in the name of Umar Khan as it is well settled principles of law that the plaintiff will either fall or stand on his own leg and cannot be allowed to take advantage of weakness of the defendant. All these arguments have been advanced relating to the substantial questions of law.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The trial court has only cataloged the evidences oral and documentary and without discussing the same abruptly, in one paragraph, recorded a finding Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 8/18 that the defendants are in possession of the suit property and, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court considering the entire evidence one by one reversed the finding of the trial court. According to the learned counsel, since the defendants are claiming that the property was purchased in the year 1914 in the name of Hasina Khatoon, it was their duty to prove how it became the property of Umar Khan. Therefore, the defendants are indirectly claiming that Hasina Khatoon was Benamidar of Umar Khan. This suit has been filed in the year 2000. Therefore, Benami Transaction Act, 1988 will apply as has been held by this court in the decision reported in 2007(4) PLJR 624. The Lower Appellate Court has also considered various documentary evidences produced by the plaintiffs in support of their case. Therefore, none of the substantial question of law framed is involved for decision in this Second Appeal. The finding recorded by the court below is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel in support of his submission placed the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, now let us consider the substantial questions of law one by one. Substantial question of law No.I:
9. As stated above, the plaintiffs have filed this present Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 9/18 suit only for injunction on the ground that they are in possession of the suit property being the descendants of the persons who were recorded in the cadastral survey record of right. The Lower Appellate Court has came to the conclusion that the defendants- appellants have not brought the plaint of the earlier suit in support of their case that these suit lands were involved in the earlier suit. From perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it is clear that the learned Lower Appellate Court has not considered this fact that so far identity of the lands is concerned, there was no dispute between the parties.
10. In the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiyarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2010)13 Supreme Court Cases 216 at paragraph 28, the Apex Court has held that "if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of law." In the present case, the specific case of the defendant is that earlier suit was filed with respect to the present suit land. The plaintiff did not raise this question. No issue was framed and the defendant was never called upon to prove this fact. In the appeal, the plaintiff never raised any ground that the earlier suit was Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 10/18 not with respect to the present suit. It further appears that no such argument was advanced before the Lower Appellate Court. Further, the learned Lower Appellate Court has not at all considered either Exhibit „Q‟ or Exhibit „P‟.
11. In the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali, (2010)12 Supreme Court Cases 740, the Apex Court has considered the scope of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held by the Apex Court in the said decision that "if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence." In view of the substantial question of law that the court below did not considered Exhibit „Q‟ and also did not considered the fact regarding no dispute about identity, the finding recorded by the court below will be perverse in view of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above. To verify this fact, this court, therefore, is competent to reappreciate the evidence in view of the decision of the Apex Court, Dinesh Kumar (supra). I, therefore, perused Exhibit „Q‟.
12. This Exhibit „Q‟ is an application filed by Ram Sahay Sahu, the ex-landlord. In this application, he has clearly Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 11/18 admitted that Umar Khan filed the suit and obtained the decree and possession in his favour. In this application also, the old khata number corresponding to R.S. khata number has been mentioned. This fully tallies with the present suit property. From perusal of the memo of appeal filed by the plaintiff in the Lower Appellate Court, I do not find any ground raised by the plaintiff to the effect that the lands involved in earlier suit of the year 1917 do not tally or is not involved in the present suit. No such argument was also advanced before the court below. It is for the plaintiff to prove this fact that in fact, the suit property was not involved in Title Suit No.186 of 1917 and, therefore, Umar Khan never took possession of this present suit property in the year 1920. From perusal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, it appears that the Lower Appellate Court without considering this Exhibit „Q‟ recorded a finding that the defendant-appellant did not produce the plaint or decree to show that the suit property was involved in the earlier suit. Therefore, in my opinion, this finding recorded by the court below is perverse being based on non-consideration of material evidences. Accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. Thus, this substantial question of law answered in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff.
13. Now, therefore, these suit properties were involved in the earlier title suit. Exhibit J is the decree dated 16.12.1918 Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 12/18 passed in Title Suit No.186 of 1917. Exhibit K is the judgment dated 30.01.1920 passed in Title Appeal No.2 of 1919 filed by ex-landlord, Ram Sahay Sahu. Exhibit L is the decree dated 06.02.1920. On 24.06.1920, the delivery of possession was given to Umar Khan which would be evident from Exhibit N. In view of the above facts, Umar Khan, the ancestor of the appellants was put in possession over the suit property as far back as on 24.06.1920 which is being admitted by the ex-landlord in Exhibit „Q‟ which was filed on 19.03.1922. The revisional survey record of right in the name of the plaintiff‟s ancestor was finally published on 31.12.1920 during the pendency of this title suit and title appeal. The appellants have produced the khatiyan and the rent receipts. In my opinion, in view of the Civil Court‟s decision and delivery of possession, the revenue record or rent receipt will never override the decree of Civil Court.
14. In the case of Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2823, the Apex Court has held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. Mutation entry in favour of the defendant did not convey any title in her favour. Merely on the basis of entry in R.S. Khatiyan in the year 1920, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 13/18 were either in possession of the property or are the owner of the property.
Substantial question of law No.II:
15. The learned court below held that the defence of the defendant-appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as Benami Act), on the basis of decision of this court in 2007(4) PLJR 624. In this decision, it has been held that the Benami Act will apply if the suit is filed subsequently even though, the transaction was prior to coming into force of Benami Act. There is no dispute about this proposition of law but in the present case, it is not the defence of the defendant-appellant that Umar Khan purchased the property in the name of his daughter-in-law, Hasina Khatoon. The simple case of the appellant is that Umar Khan was the owner of the property. He purchased the suit in the name of his daughter-in-law through registered sale deed of the year 1914(Exhibit P) and on the basis of that, he filed Title Suit No.186 of 1917 and got the decree and obtained possession through execution case. Therefore, this Benami Transaction or matter was the subject matter of earlier suit which was found favour and decree was granted in favour of Umar Khan. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court as well as Appellate Court in the earlier suit and appeal of the year 1917 and 1919, it appears Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 14/18 that in the suit and appeal, Hasina Khatoon, daughter-in-law of Umar Khan was also defendant. She did not claim to be the real owner of the property. This dispute was inter se dispute between Hasina Khatoon and Umar Khan. So far the plaintiffs are concerned, they are nobody to raise this question. Moreover, this matter has already been concluded as far back as in 1920 and on the basis of the decree of suit and appeal, possession was delivered to Umar Khan. This plea of Benami was never pleaded by the defendant and could not have been pleaded in view of the fact that title has already been declared in favour of Umar Khan which would be evident from Exhibit „K‟ wherein in the last portion of the judgment, the Lower Appellate Court has concluded as follows:
"In conclusion therefore, after considering all the evidence in this case I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his title to the disputed land and he is entitled to recover possession thereof together with mesne profit from Ram Sahay Sahu, defendant no.1."
16. Therefore, in view of the decree of the Civil Court, Umar Khan is the owner of the property. In the memo of appeal, the plaintiff never raised this question that the defence of the defendant is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Act. No such Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 15/18 argument was also advanced. However, suo motu, the learned Lower Appellate Court recorded this finding without considering the fact that Umar Khan has already been declared to be the owner of the property and possession was delivered to him. It is well settled principles of law that a court cannot make out a case not pleaded by the parties. In other words, the court is required to find out the case pleaded by the parties. The court should confine its decision to the question raised in the pleading vide (2008)17 Supreme Court Cases 491(Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal and another). Now in this present suit on the ground of Benami the findings of title and possession of Umar Khan in earlier suit can not be set aside particularly when it is not the case of any party.
17. In view of my above discussion, I find that the defence of the defendant is not that Hasina Khatoon is Benamidar of Umar Khan. In fact, the pleading is to the effect that he is the real owner, as has been declared in earlier suit and appeal. There is no issue framed on this question nor any point was framed by the Lower Appellate Court nor the argument was advanced by the plaintiff in the Lower Appellate Court but the learned Lower Appellate Court has made a third case and has recorded a wrong finding that the defence of the defendant is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Act. Thus, this finding of the learned Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 16/18 Lower Appellate Court is hereby set aside and reversed. Substantial question of law No.III:
18. From perusal of the Lower Appellate Court judgment, it appears that the Lower Appellate Court exercised much in deciding the validity, legality or otherwise of the cancellation of Jamabandi and held that the order passed by D.C.L.R. is wrong and the Jamabandi was rightly opened in the name of the plaintiff. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff never prayed in the suit for setting aside the order passed by the D.C.L.R. The plaintiff never prayed for declaration of title. This issue was also not framed in the Lower Appellate Court. As has been discussed above, the Apex Court has held that the mutation or revenue record does not create title or extinguish title and, therefore, the finding recorded by the court below on this mutation order will never affect the right, title and possession of the appellant. This correct or incorrect order of the revenue officer will never override the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Delivery of possession has already been affected in favour of the ancestor of the appellants in the year 1920. The plaintiffs never pleaded as to when they dispossessed the ancestor of the plaintiff or the plaintiffs. They only prayed for injunction on the basis of their possession. They intentionally and knowingly did not say anything about the earlier decisions of the Civil Court. Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 17/18 Therefore, in my opinion, they did not approach the court with clean hand. In such view of the matter, the finding recorded by the court below on the basis of cancellation of Jamabandi in the year 1999 will not affect the possession of the appellant. Accordingly, this substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the appellant.
Substantial question of law No.IV:
19. It is well settled principles of law that the plaintiff will stand or fall on the strength of its own case and will not get benefit of the weakness of the defendant‟s case. From the impugned judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, it appears that the Appellate Court instead of considering the case of the plaintiff and the question as to whether the plaintiffs have been able to prove their possession approached the case and decided that the defendants failed to prove the identity of the lands involved in earlier suit and present suit and that the defence is barred u/s 4 of Benami Act and the order of mutation in favour of appellant is wrong. Therefore, this substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the appellant.
20. Thus, all the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the defendant-appellant. The ancestor of the defendants-appellants, Umar Khan was in Patna High Court SA No.585 of 2010 dt.15-05-2012 18/18 possession of the property and continued in possession thereof. After vesting also, his descendants continued in possession. There is no case made out by the plaintiff as to when they dispossessed the appellants. The learned court below without considering these facts and circumstances and the materials, decreed the plaintiff‟s suit on the ground that the defendants failed to produce either plaint of earlier suit or return and without considering Exhibit „Q‟.
21. In the result, the impugned judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside. This Second Appeal is thus allowed and the trial court judgment and decree is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/A.F.R.