Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the plaintiff was never the reversioner because she was absolute owner after the death of Nathuni Singh and, therefore, the law of reversioner is not applicable. According to the learned counsel she is heir of Nathuni Singh and, therefore, she can challenge the gift made by Fulbaso Kunwar regarding the property of Nathuni Singh. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Court below has rightly held that the gift deed executed by Mostt. Fulbaso is void document. The learned counsel further submitted that because Mostt. Fulbaso has no right title to gift the property of Nathuni Singh in gift and, therefore, the gift deed was void and it was not necessary for the plaintiff to institute suit for declaration that the gift deed was void. In any subsequent proceeding or suit, it can be shown that the gift deeds are void document. The learned counsel further submitted that it cannot be said that the alienation in the shape of gift by Mostt. Fulbaso Kunwar was for legal necessity. If it is proved that the said alienation was without legal necessity then it will be a void document. The plaintiff being the heir has been able to prove that the gift deed were executed without legal necessity and, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly held that the gift was void.

(ii) Whether the sale deeds executed by Jagrano Kunwar, appellant No.1, in favour of other appellants, i.e., 21 sale deeds are void sale deeds and whether the impugned Judgment and Decree are sustainable in the eye of law?

15. In this case, it is admitted fact that Ram Ratan Singh died in 1953. Fulbaso Kunwar died in 1958. Nathuni Singh died in 1968 and Ramendra Krishna died in 1956. The gift deeds have been produced in this case and they are marked as Ext.11 and 11/A. Those gift deeds have been executed by Mostt. Fulbaso Kunwar for self and guardian of Nathuni Singh describing Nathuni Singh as Khaptul Hawas. The literal meaning of Khaptul Hawas is insane/lunatic. According to the plaint, nowhere it is mentioned as to whether Nathuni Singh was insane or not. There is no case made out in the plaint that he became insane only after death of his father. From perusal of the gift deed as stated above, he has been described as Khaptul Hawas on 27.01.1955. Therefore, the presumption under the law is that fact which is proved to exist on a particular date will be presumed to continue till the contrary is proved and this presumption is backward and forward both. Now, therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove that earlier prior to death of Ram Ratan Singh, Nathuni Singh was not insane and he became insane or lunatic only after the death of his father. Unless the plaintiff proved this fact by pleading and adducing cogent evidence, the presumption will be against the plaintiff.

33. Point No.2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the 21 sale deeds executed by Jagrano Kunwar are void because no permission from the authority under the Consolidation Act was taken. So far this submission is concerned also, I do not agree with the learned counsel because it has been held above that the gift deeds are valid deeds and the plaintiff are precluded from challenging the same. Now, therefore, the plaintiff and her son became owner of entire property of Ram Ratan Singh to the extent of half and half on the basis of gift and them came in joint possession. When Jagrano Kunwar sold the property in 1989, the plaintiff filed application for declaring the sale deed as void before the Consolidation authorities. By Ext.C/1, i.e., dated 18.08.1992, the D.M. Buxar held that the 21 sale deeds have been executed in 1989 and the consolidation proceedings had already concluded in the year 1978. The records of rights have already been distributed to the land owners. Only formal notification is to be issued de-notifying the area. Therefore, the D.M. refused to declare the sale deeds as void. Against the said order of the D.M., a writ application was filed before this Court being C.W.J.C. No.13116 of 1992 by plaintiff-respondent which was dismissed on 08.08.1995 and, therefore, order of the D.M. has become now final. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in A.I.R.2010 Patna 143 Panna Devi Vs. State of Bihar and submitted that the sale deeds are void. From perusal of the Full Bench decision, it appears that the Full Bench has held that transfer of any land contrary to the provisions of the Act shall be void. So far this principle is concerned, there is no dispute but in the present case as has been held by the D.M. Buxar the consolidation proceeding had already been finished and record of rights have already been distributed within land owners. The question is whether the bar will operate thereafter also? Because of the dismissal of the writ application, the said order of the D.M. has now become final and only on this technical ground, it cannot be held that the sale deeds are void sale deeds.

35. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Jagrano Kunwar never came in possession and only the plaintiff was in possession and, therefore, the purchasers never came in possession. So far this question is concerned, it may be mentioned here that on the death of Ramendra Krishna Singh, Jagrano Kunwar with the plaintiff became the co-sharer and, therefore, possession of plaintiff will be deemed to be the possession of Jagrano also. So far the share of Jagrano Kunwar is concerned, it is not disputed. The learned counsel or the respondent further submitted that Jagrano Kunwar has executed more than her share and, therefore, the sale deeds are void and further without partition she could not have sold the property. So far this submission is concerned also, it may be mentioned here that there is no such pleading in the plaint as to what was the extent of entire property and what was the share of Jagrano Kunwar and what is the excess share. If there had been no partition between Jagrano Kunwar and Fulbaso Kunwar then it can at best be said that the purchaser will have a right to file partition suit but on that ground it cannot be said that the sale deeds are void.