GIAN CHAND Vs. KESHAV AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the learned Courts below, under, concurrent verdicts, dismissed, the plaintiff's suit for rendition of a declaratory decree, and, also declined, to render hence a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis the suit land. The aggrieved thereupon plaintiff hence prefers the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, and, a coordinate bench of this Court, on 14th June, 2010, had reversed the concurrently recorded verdicts, pronounced, by both the learned Courts below. The aggrieved defendants, preferred Civil Appeal No. 11059 of 2017 before the Honourable Apex Court. The aforesaid Appeal stood allowed by the Honourable Apex Court, on anvil, of, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, without any substantial question of law being formulated, vis-a-vis, the apt gift deed, its rather proceeding to record findings in respect thereto, whereupon, this Court stands re-seized, with, the instant Regular Second Appeal, after the Honourable Apex Court, making a direction for its being reheard, after, this Court/ hence/ formulating, an apt substantial question of law, appertaining to the validity, of, the apt gift deed. This Court, under, orders pronounced, on 26.02.2018, framed, a substantial question of law, hereafter occurring, at, Sr. No.1, besides this Court on 31.07.2008, upon, a conjoint prayer made before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing, for the respective litigants, framed, a, substantial question, of, law, hereinafter occurring, at Sr. No.2:-

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of 13 bighas 8 biswas land being 7/20th share of 38 bighas 6 biswas land, which was owned and possessed by late Smt. Hardei. They pleaded that said Smt. Hardei was their father's sister and that she executed a gift deed, in respect of her share in the suit land, in their favour on 23rd Dec., 1985 and got that deed registered with the Registrar of Documents, on 1st Jan., 1986. It was stated that said Hardei died in the year 1991 and after her death, the defendants without any right, title or interest in the suit land, started interfering in their possession. Besides seeking a decree of declaration, in the aforesaid terms, they sought issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining he defendants from interfering in their possession over the above described land. They further pleaded that in case they were dispossessed by the defendants, decree for possession be passed in their favour.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. They claimed that defendant NO.1 Keshav had been inducted as tenant on the suit land by Hardei some 15-16 years prior to her death and that ever since he had been in possession as tenant and was paying rent, in kind, by sharing the produce of the land with said Hardei, to the extent of 1/4th. It is also stated that even if it is not proved that Shri Keshav had acquired title of ownership in respect of the suit land on the basis of tenancy, even then he had acquired title of ownership in respect of the suit land by way of adverse possession much prior to Smt. Hardei executing the gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs, and, as such, the gift is illegal and void. Apart from this, the defendants have taken various preliminary objections.