Lal Chand Teli vs Nabi Narayan Sahu and Others

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 40 of 1978 for declaration of title and recovery of possession over 17 decimals land of Revisional Survey Plot No. 262, appertain to Khata No. 182 of Village Malti, District Ranchi, against the defendants.

The suit land belonged to one Kanilal Sahu. Plot Nos. 261 and 262 were contiguous to each other.

Plaintiff claimed to have purchased a decimals land of Revisional Survey Plot No. 261 from the recorded tenant by two registered sale deeds dated 19.3.1958 and 18.8.1959. He also purchased 8 decimals land of Revisional Survey Plot No. 262 by registered sale deed dated 13.6.1958.

Plaintiffs further case was that Mostt. Sujan was legally married wife of Kanilal Sahu. She sold the suit property to him by two registered sale deed dated 19.7.1973 and 20.7.1974.

Defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased 11 decimals of Revisional Survey Plot No. 262 by registered sale deed dated 14.12.1959 from Kanilal Sahu in the name of his wife, defendant No. 2 which according to plaintiff, was a sham transaction and was never acted upon. It was alleged by the defendants that Mostt. Sujan was a concubine, of Kanilal Sahu.

Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Mostt. Sujan was not legally married wife of Kanila Sahu and so she had no right, title and interest over the suit property. She was, therefore, not competent to transfer the suit property. Plaintiff, therefore, did not acquire any right, title and interest on the basis of sale deed executed by Mostt. Sujan. Sale deed dated 14.12.1959 in respect of 11 decimals land of Revisional Survey Plot No. 262 in favour of defendant No. 2 was genuine, valid and operative. Defendant No. 2 came and continued in possession of the said 11 decimals land and her possession was also declared in a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 73 of 1981, which was also dismissed, affirming findings of the trial Court.

Nobody has appeared in this appeal on behalf of defendants-respondents.

After hearing counsel for plaintiff-appellant and perusing the lower Court records, I find that plaintiffs claim of purchasing 8 decimals land of Revisional Survey Plot No. 262 by registered sale deed dated 13,6.1958. Ext. 1/d from the recorded tenant, Kanilal Sahu, which was part of total 17 decimals land of the said plot was neither considered nor any finding was recorded therefore. The said sale deed Ext. 1/d was executed prior to the sale deed dated 14.12,1959, Ext. A, in the name of defendant No. 2, which was executed by the recorded tenant himself, so after deducting 8 decimals land, already transferred by sale deed, Ext. 1/d out of total 17 decimals land only 9 decimals land in Revisional Survey Plot No: 262 was available for being transferred and therefore sale deed, Ext. A was valid for 9 decimals only.

In my opinion, the aforesaid aspect of the matter was necessary to be decided. I therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the court of appeal below and remit the matter to the court of appeal below for limited consideration of plaintiffs right, title and interest in respect of 8 decimals out of 17 decimals Jn Revisional Survey Plot No. 262 on the basis of Ext. 1/d.

In the result, this appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. but without costs, Lower Court records may be sent down forthwith.