Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The respondent, as plaintiff filed the TS No. 167/2007 for declaration of right, title, Page No.# 2/10 interest, confirmation of possession and cancellation of sale deed in favour of the defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that one Babahan Singh was the exclusive owner of the land covered by second RS Patta No. 31, which contained Dag Nos. 113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 & 123 and the total land in the entire patta was 6 bigha 10 katha. Originally the land of R.S. Patta No. 31 was included in R.S. Patta No, 11, 28 & 29 and during re-settlement operation the second R.S. Patta No. 31 was issued in favour of Babahan Singh. The Dag No. 122 of the said R.S. Patta No. 31 contained total land of 1 bigha 6 katha 14 chatak and the original Dag No. of 122 was 95 of patta No. 29. The land covered by Dag No. 95 of R.S. Patta No. 29, which was later on included in Dag No. 122 of R.S. Patta No. 31 was sold by Babahan Singh to one Gopinath Pal by registered sale deed on 20.04.1955 and delivered possession. Later on, Gopinath Pal sold the said land of Dag No. 122 to one Ganesh Chandra Pal by registered deed on 26.05.1960 and delivered possession. After death of Ganesh Ch. Pal, his legal heir sold 6 katha 8 chatak of land covered by Dag No. 122 of R.S. Patta No. 31 along with other land to the plaintiff by a registered deed on 23.09.1997 and thereafter again by another registered sale deed on 11.09.1998, the plaintiff purchased 1 katha 2 chatak of land from Dag No. 122 of R.S. Patta No. 31 along with other land from the legal heir of Ganesh Ch. Pal and the plaintiff had been possessing the said land by right of purchase. While the plaintiff had been possessing total land measuring 7 katha 10 chatak of Dag No. 122 purchased from the legal heir of Ganesh Ch. Pal, the defendant attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the said land, in the year 2004, claiming that they have purchased the said land. Thereafter, the plaintiff also received a notice from the Executive Magistrate in respect of a criminal proceeding under Section 145 CrPC initiated by the defendant and accordingly, plaintiff made an enquiry in the office of the Sub-registrar and came to know that a sale deed was allegedly executed by one Jayanti Manipuri on 01.03.2000. After obtaining the certified copy of the said sale deed, the plaintiff could know about the alleged sale deed purportedly executed by Jayanti Manipuri in favour of the defendant, whereby the land measuring 19 katha 10 chatak of Dag No. 122 of R.S. Patta No. 31 was shown to have been sold to the defendant. It was further stated that the original pattadar Babahan Singh sold the entire land of Dag No. 122 measuring 1 bigha 6 katha 14 chatak to Gopinath Pal, who in turn sold the land to Ganesh Ch. Pal and as such no land in Dag No. 122 was left out and therefore, the said deed in favour of the defendant purportedly executed by Jayanti Manipuri giving boundary of the land of the plaintiff was fraudulent and collusive and therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title & interest over the suit land and also for cancellation of the sale deed in favour of Page No.# 3/10 the defendant.

123. However, the name of Jayanti Manipuri was not recorded in R.S. Patta No. 31 nor the Dag No. 123 was included in the aforementioned second R.S. Patta No. 31. Accordingly a miscellaneous case was filed being M.C. No. 28 of 1984-85 and as per order passed in the said case, name of Jayanti Manipuri was recorded in second R.S. Patta No. 31. Said Jayanti Manipuri sold 19 katha 10 chatak of land of R.S. Patta No. 31 of Dag No. 122, which was earlier included in Dag No. 109 and Patta No. 16 and, later on in R.S. Patta No. 29 and Dag No. 95, to the defendant by executing a registered deed through her attorney. The defendant have acquired valid title over the said land measuring 19 katha 10 chatak by right of purchase from Jayanti Manipuri and the plaintiff has no right title and interest over the suit land.

12. Evidently, the name of Jayanti Manipuri, was recorded in the Jamabandi of the Patta No. 31 on the basis of her claim of title by inheritance from Uriba Singh, through his descendants Kunja Singh and Samu Singh. Because pleaded case of the defendant was that Uriba Singh purchased the land of Patta No. 29 from pattadars Umed Ali, Somed Ali and Arjit Ali of Patta No. 29 and from Uriba Sing, the said land was inherited by his son Kunja Singh and from Kunja Singh, title of the land devolved upon his son Samu Singh and Jayanti Manipuri was stated to have inherited from Samu Singh. The defendant allegedly purchased the land vide Ext. B from the attorney of said Jayanti Manipuri. Although, it is the case of the defendant that the land purchased by the defendant originally belong to Dag No. 109 of CS Patta No. 16, which was later on included in Dag No. 95 of Patta No. 29 and then in Dag No. 122, R.S. Patta No. 31, no evidence was brought on record by the defendant to establish that the suit land at any point of time was included in Dag No. 109 or the land of Dag No.9 was included in Dag No.122. Though Ext. 2 shows that Patta No. 29 was curved out from Patta No. 16, there was no dag No. 109 in Patta No. 29 proved as Ext. 2. It is also an admitted position that though the defendant claimed to have purchased the suit land through attorney of Jayanti Manipuri, neither the power of attorney nor execution of sale deed was proved as per the Evidence Act.

Page No.# 7/10 Apparently the claim of the defendant is based only on the entry in the jamabandi of R.S. Patta No. 31, which was made in the year 1987-88. Though, admittedly R.S. Patta No. 31 was issued exclusively in favour of Babahan Singh, curving out the land from Patta No. 11, 28 & 29, no evidence was brought on record to establish, that the vendor of the defendant was the owner of Dag No. 109 or the said Dag No. 109 was later included in Dag No. 95 or 122. The mutation entry in respect of Jayanti Manipuri also shows that initially there was no Dag No. 123 in RS Patta No. 31 and said dag was incorporated by order dated 04.03.1987 in favour of Jayanti Manipuri. Admittedly, no record or order of the concerned authority could be produced to support such mutation entry incorporating Dag No. 123. Therefore, what is palpable is that except entry in jamabandi, the defendant has not been able to produce any reliable document to substantiate his claim of purchase of land in Dag No. 122 of Patta No. 31 or to show that Jayanti had any title on the land of Dag No. 122 of RS Patta No. 31.