Dev Narain and Others vs Kanhaiya Lal and Others

Satish Chandra, J.—The present second appeal has been filed by the Appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 6th January, 1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Gonda in Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1981 as well as the judgment and order dated 31.7.1981 passed by the Additional Munsif-V, Gonda in Civil Suit No. 28 of 1980.

The brief facts of the case are that on 6.8.1963, one Smt. Ramrati, issueless widow, executed a sale-deed in favour of Janardan (D.W.3) pertaining to her entire property including one house, space for cattle, trees and possession was given. It is alleged that again another sale-deed was executed on 20.11.1963 by Smt. Ramrati in favour of the Plaintiffs, so the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession of the said property. The trial court found that subsequent sale-deed was forged. The sale-deed was executed by impersonating other lady as Smt. Ramrati. The lower court also examined the witnesses and documents including the alleged sale-deed. The lower court also observed that house of the Plaintiffs is too far from the disputed property and the house of Janardan (D.W.3) is adjacent to the disputed property. Finally, the court observed, after examining the witnesses and documents, that the subsequent sale-deed in favour of the Plaintiffs was forged. On the other hand, the Defendants were in possession over the said property since long, even prior to U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

Not being satisfied, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Civil Judge who vide its impugned order dated 6.1.1982 has dismissed the appeal. Still being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal.

With this background, Sri R.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Appellants, submits that the Defendants-Respondents had never set up their title on the basis of adverse possession nor they have given any evidence in this respect, still learned lower appellate court has held them of perfecting their title on account of their adverse possession of the land- when admittedly the sale-deed in their favour had been executed on 16th June, 1979 and the suit had been filed in the year 1980. He further submits that the courts below have illegally held that Smt. Ramrati was not the owner of the disputed property. He further submits that the lower appellate court fell in error by going into the controversy that Smt. Ramrati had any other property or not except the one which she had sold to Janardan, and simply on conjecture recorded a finding that it was not possible for the lady to own two houses when the controversy was not at all in issue. He also submits that the Plaintiff-Appellants had prayed for cancellation of the sale-deed which had been executed by Abdul Shakoor (D.W.4) in favour of Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.1) and as such it had to be established that Abdul Shakoor had title to the disputed land but the learned lower appellate court has held his title proved because the disputed property was adjacent to his house. This conclusion as such was quite illegal. Lastly, he prays that judgments and orders of the lower court as well as the appellate court may kindly be set aside.

The counsel for the Respondents justified the impugned order.

After hearing learned Counsels and on perusal of record, it appears that late Smt. Ramrati, issuless widow, has executed a sale-deed in favour of the Defendants-Respondents and the disputed property was in their possession since long even prior to the U.P. Zamindari Abolitiona and Land Reforms Act. From the village register (Kutumb register), it was found that Smt. Ramrati was the owner of only one house and open space which was used for the purpose of cattles. The witness Shiv Kumar (P.W.3) was produced by the Plaintiffs. After examining him, the lower court observed that he was not found of the same village and is living in another village, so his statement was not found worthy. The appellate court also observed that Smt. Ramrati in her old age has sold the entire property in favour of Janardan (D.W.3) for the repayment of loan of Mahajan and also to use the remaining amount for pilgrimage.

A commission was issued to examine the disputed property. The commission has submitted its report dated 14.4.1980 which was accepted by the court on 23.8.1980 after inviting the objections.

Smt. Ramrati has sold the entire property to Janardan and nothing was left with Smt. Ramrati, so there was no question to execute another sale-deed in favour of Plaintiffs. The Respondents also raised objection that the suit was time barred. The subsequent sale-deed in favour of Plaintiffs was found forged as some other lady impersonation executed the alleged sale-deed. The disputed property is adjacent to the property of Sri Janardan (D.W.3) and not with the property of Plaintiffs as the house of the Plaintiffs is too far from the disputed property.

In view of the above facts, no substantial question of law is emerging from the impugned order passed by the appellate court. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. The same are hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.

The second appeal is dismissed. No cost.