Gopal Tewari vs Nandan Mishra & Anr.

This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 30th November, 2016 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court at Malda in O.C. Appeal No. 67 of 2015 affirming the judgement and decree dated 14th September, 2015 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Malda in O.C. Suit No. 139 of 2012, at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.

Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not.

Here is the case where we find that there is competition between the two deeds executed by the same person in favour of two different donees. Admittedly, the owner of the suit property was Botol Mishra. He, during his lifetime executed two deeds of gift on the same day i.e. on 3rd January, 1973. One of such deeds which was executed by the said donor in favour of Gopal being the son of the donor''s daughter viz. Jyostna, was presented for registration before the Registering Authority on the day when the said deed was executed i.e. on 3rd January, 1973. The registration number of the said deed was 129. The other deed of gift which was executed by the said donor in favour of his youngest daughter viz. Manju, was also presented for registration before the Registering Authority on the day when the said deed of gift was executed by the donor i.e. on 3rd January, 1973. The deed was registered and the registration number of the said deed was 128.

Thus, we find that the deed of gift which was executed in favour of Manju, was earlier in point of time, than the other deed of gift which was executed in favour of Gopal. Both the deeds were executed on the same day. There is no evidence on record to show that the deed of gift executed in favour of Gopal, was executed before execution of the deed of gift in favour of Manju.

As such, even by applying Section 47 of the Registration Act, we cannot come to the conclusion that the deed of gift executed in favour of Gopal having been executed earlier in point of time than the deed of gift executed in favour of Manju, the deed of gift executed in favour of Gopal will prevail over the deed of gift executed in favour of Manju.

When under such circumstances, both the courts below held that the deed of gift executed in favour of Manju will prevail over the deed of gift executed in favour of Gopal, we find no illegality in the findings of the courts below.

Under such circumstances, we do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal. We thus, find no merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, we decline to admit this appeal.

The appeal is, thus, dismissed.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.