ATAL SHRIVASTAVA Vs. DEVPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal, preferred by the plaintiff, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 5-2-2011 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 19-A/2009, whereby the suit, filed by the plaintiff /appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction, has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts, as projected by the plaintiff/appellant, are that Manohar, son of Mangat Suryavanshi was owner of a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 259/3, are 0.50 acre (0.202 hectare), situated at Village Mangla. P. H. No. 21, R. I. Circle Bilaspur (henceforth 'the suit land'), which was subsequently purchased by Smt. Jotkunwar, widow of Nandram Satnami, resident of Sakri through a registered sale-deed dated 21-3-1975 and as such she became owner of the suit land and came into possession thereof. During her lifetime, she gifted the suit land to Smt. Yashoda Bai, W/o Dhanaram Satnami through a gift-deed dated 3-2-1989. Since the suit land was received vide the gift-deed, Smt. Yashoda Bai could not get her name recorded in the revenue records and after her death, her legal heirs, namely, Ganesh and Dinesh inherited the suit land and later on, they executed agreement dated 8-6-2004 in favour of Kadaram, S/o Ramkhilawan Jangde. Kadaram was grand son of the original owner Smt. Jotkunwar. As such, the suit land got mutated in the name of Kadaram. Kadaram sold out the suit land to the appellant/plaintiff through registered sale-deed dated 15-9-2004 and handed over him ownership and possession thereof. By virtue of the sale-deed, the appellant/plaintiff became owner of the suit land. On his making an application for mutation in the revenue records, an objection was raised by brothers of Kadaram, namely, Vikram and defendant No.l Devprasad. The objection was allowed and the suit land was mutated in the name of Vikram, defendant No. 1 Devprasad and Kadaram. Subsequently, on getting their shares out of the consideration of the sale, Vikram and defendant No.1 Devprasad executed consent-deeds dated 28-10-2004 and 22-1-2008, respectively, in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and as such the appellant/ plaintiff became owner of the suit land and came in possession thereof from the date of its sale. Since, the suit land was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 Devprasad along with two others and he, even after executing consent-deed dated 22-1-2008 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, was trying to sell out the suit land, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land.

(3.) THE trial Court framed as many as ten issues and after appreciation of the evidence and documents available on record, recorded its findings that the plaintiff did not prove that Smt. Jotkunwar executed gift-deed in favour of Smt. Yashoda Bai. The said gift- deed was an unregistered deed and it was not proved by the plaintiff. The trial Court further arrived at the finding that Smt. Jotkunwar was owner of the suit land and the suit land is ancestral property. Kadaram alone did not have right to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. On the basis of sale-deed dated 15-9-2004, the plaintiff did not acquire any title over the suit land. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff did not implead the necessary party to the suit, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the suit.