PUNI BAI Vs. PRAKASIYUS KERKETTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 19/4/2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja in Civil Appeal No.73-A of 2002 by which learned lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dtd. 31/3/2001 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-II Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.95-A of 1998 and decreed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The respondent- plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaratory relief of title and permanent injunction on the pleadings, inter alia, that the property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed from Parasnath Singh and Bari, defendants No. 7 & 8, for a valid consideration of Rs.60,000.00 vide sale deed dtd. 20/1/1995 and after obtaining possession, he had been enjoying possession and continuing with agricultural activity. According to the plaintiff, defendants No. 7 & 8 had tittle over the property in dispute but later on, Sub Divisional Officer held enquiry and then passed an order on 22/2/1996 directing return of land to defendant No.1- Lalsai, defendant No.2- Genda and defendant No.5- Chamra. The plaintiff pleaded that in respect of the property which belong to Lalsai, Ghuran and Bandhan and was sold by them to Dilrakhan, later on, an enquiry under Sec. 170-B of the Land Revenue Code had already made and an order was passed by SDO way back on 5/12/1985. The proceedings were closed. When fresh application was filed after about a decade by Lalsai and successor of Ghuran and Bandhan raising some dispute, though the SDO sought permission of the Collector, Sarguja, to review its earlier order dtd. 5/12/1985, the matter remained pending and in the meantime, order was passed in purported exercise of review jurisdiction. On such pleadings, the plaintiff sought a declaration of his title, permanent injunction as also a declaration that order passed by the SDO in the concerned revenue case on 22/2/1996 be declared null and void.

(3.) The plaintiff's suit was resisted by the appellant-defendant stating that transaction out of which the vendor of the plaintiff claimed to have succeeded to the property and thereafter sold it to the plaintiff were all fraudulent transactions and it was essentially a benami transaction. Dilrakhan was not true purchaser but it was Bhagwandas on whose behalf, purchase was made in the name of Dilrakhan.