Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and accordingly, plot number was corrected and the name of the petitioner was entered into Jamabandi No. 184/258 existing in name of Jhagru Gope and thus new jamabandi was created in Mutation Case No. 04 of of 2001. The petitioner had also purchased 5 ΒΌ dhurs land of the said plot no. 659 from Genhari Yadav, son of late Ram Sahay Yadav, by way of registered sale deed dated 25.04.1980. Since wrong plot number was mentioned in earlier sale deed, following the same sale Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1076 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024 deed, again incorrect plot number was mentioned and same mistake was committed by the deed writer. But despite repeated requests of the petitioner, Genhari Yadav, the father of the respondent, did not agree to file any petition for rectification of the said mistake committed by the deed writer and correction of the plot number. Further case of the petitioner is that in past when the dispute arose over plot number of earlier purchased 02 decimal land of the petitioner, a panchayati was held and Genhari Yadav accepted that the plot number has been wrongly mentioned and dispute over right to way ('Rasta') was settled. However, in the document of panchanama, it came to be wrongly mentioned that 02 decimal of land was purchased by the petitioner from father of Genhari Yadav whereas father of Genhari Yadav sold 02 decimal land to Jhagru Gope, whose wife later on sold it to the petitioner. Further, in the sale-deed dated 25.04.1980 executed by Genhari Yadav, by virtue of earlier purchased 02 decimal land, the petitioner has been shown as boundary raiyat. Further case of the petitioner is that the defendant/respondent, with an intention to grab the land purchased by the petitioner, filed a petition for correction of jamabandi No. 184/258 vide Case No. 01/2005-06. In the said case, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, on the basis of wrong Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1076 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024 and fictitious report of Halka Karmachari and Circle Inspector, included the said land in Original jamabandi No. 184 and against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Collector, Munger vide Appeal No. 07 of 2005-06. However, in the appeal, learned Collector, Munger vide order dated 18.01.2010 directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for resolution of the issue and thus, Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 came to be filed by the petitioner.

05. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same needs to be sustained. Leaned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned trial court has rightly debarred the petitioner from asking questions with regard to contents of a registered document, which is not admissible under the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Act. The father of the respondent did not sell any land to the petitioner and a fraudulent document has been brought Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1076 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024 into existence by the petitioner since the father of the respondent died on 07.06.1977 and it was not possible for him to execute sale deed on 25.04.1980. The claim of the petitioner about mentioning of wrong plot number, i.e., Plot No. 654 in the sale deed of 1949 instead of Plot No. 659, is not correct since the respondent has been in possession of the suit land of Plot No. 659 and considering this fact, Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and it was opened in the name of the respondent. Late Ram Sahay Yadav never sold the land of Plot No. 659 to Jhagru Gope and for this reason Dhaniya Devi wife of Jhagru Dope had no right to execute the correction deed in favour of the petitioner changing the Plot No. from 654 to

09. Now, coming back to the facts of the case, the learned trial court disallowed the question put by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the respondent in his cross- examination regarding boundary of Plot Nos. 659 and 654. No doubt, the contents of a document with regard to disposition of Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1076 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024 property cannot be given under the provisions of Section 91 of the Act, but the suit has been brought for declaration of title and possession of the petitioner on the suit property purportedly of Plot No. 659 and it has been claimed by the petitioner that plot number has been wrongly mentioned. Now, Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Act allows any fact to be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. The mistake contemplated under the Proviso must be genuine and accidental mistakes like misdescription of property. Evidence can be allowed to know whether a particular land was conveyed under the document as held in the case of Rikhiram and Anr. Vs. Ghasiram, reported in AIR 1978 MP 189, wherein it has further been held that oral evidence was admissible to prove that the expression of the contract was contrary to the concurrent intention of all the parties due to a common mistake. In the case of Ram Jiwan Rai and Ors. vs Deoki Nandan Rai and Ors., reported in AIR 2005 PAT 23 [relying on the decision in the case of Sheodhyan Singh (supra)], it has been held that where there was intrinsic evidence Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1076 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024 to prove that the vendor intended to convey the right, title and interest in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the mistake in the plot number must be treated as a mere misdescription which does not affect the identity of the property sold.

12. In the present case, it is a pertinent fact to take note of that the first vendor admitted the mistake in khesra number and subsequently got a rectification deed which is in tune with the case of the petitioner about misdescription of the property regarding mentioning of wrong plot number. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff/petitioner could be allowed to adduce oral evidence with regard to wrong plot number or boundary of correct plot number and in order to prove his contention, it is open to the plaintiff/petitioner to bring evidence for determining the existence of mistake and plaintiff could put such questions in cross-