BIHAR PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE Vs. BIHAR VIDYAPITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th June, 1986 and decree dated 10th July, 1986, passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 144 of 1984, reversing the judgment dated 9th August 1984, passed by the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Patna, in Title Suit No. 60/ 161 of 1966/82.

(2.) THE defendant of the suit is the appellant before this Court.

(3.) UNDER the backdrop of the aforesaid findings of the appellate Court, I shall examine the findings regarding the acquisition of Plot Nos. 591 and 596. Plot No. 591 was admittedly acquired by the sale-deed dated 8th April, 1921 (Ext-1/F) executed by Mostt. Harkalia, wife of Deo Narayan, in the name of Maulana Mazharul Haque, The fact that Plot No. 591 was wrongly mentioned as '581' in the aforesaid sale-deed was not disputed. It was the case of the defendant-appellant that Mazharul Haque was the president of Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee at the relevant time and, therefore, sale-deed in his name was for the BPCC. But it is to be noted that the W.S. of the defendant-appellant was to the effect that the defendant had obtained this land from Deo Narayan Rout with his consent and it came in permissive possession. But it has also transpired from the evidence on the record that Maulana Mazharul Haque was appointed the first Chancellor of Bihar Vidyapith and earlier this Vidyapith was being run in a rented building somewhere else; but in the year 1921, it was shifted to Sadaquat Ashram. So the sale-deed in the name of Mazharul Haque who was the Chancellor of this Institution would mean that Mazharul Haque had obtained this land for Vidyapith. There is no dispute that Maulana Mazharul Haque was not the first Chancellor of Vidyapith and the appellate Court has referred to the documentary and oral evidence in this connection, including the evidence on behalf of defendant-appellant and held that Mazharul Haque was the Chancellor of vidyapith and Mahatma Gandhi was pleased that Vidyapith was shifted to Sadaquat Ashram and it got a permanent abode for running its business of educational, and cultural advancement of the general public. Since the defendant-appellant has given up the plea in the W.S. that this land was under its possession with consent of the owner Deo Narayan, the subsequent plea that Mazharul Haque had obtained this land for the BPCC was against the pleading. So that appellate Court negatived the case of the defendant regarding possession of this plot by the BPCC and, accordingly, its claim of title over the same. So far Plot No. 596 is concerned, it was obtained by Acharya Badri Nath Verma by a sale-deed dated 19th February, 1927. It was Acharya Badri Nath Verma who was referred to as the Registrar of the Vidyapith in the sale-deed (Ext-1/E). The appellate Court examined the Khatiyan in this connection and it came to the conclusion that the sale-deed was executed by the descendants of the recorded tenants, in favour of Acharya Badri Nath Verma, Registrar of the Vidyapith. This land was claimed by the defendant-appellant on the basis of the fact that Badri Nath Verma was a member the Congress Party and, therefore, when he was purchasing the land as the Registrar of the Vidyapith, he had purchased it not for the Vidyapith, but for the BPCC. This contention of the appellant's lawyer was neither here nor there. When in the sale-deed Badri Nath Verma was referred to as the Registrar of the Vidyapith, it was a clear indication that he was making acquisition of the aforesaid land in the capacity of the Registrar of the Vidyapith and so the aforesaid acquisition would be for the benefit of the Vidyapith and by the Vidyapith. There was no evidence that consideration money for the aforesaid deed was paid by the BPCC. So in all circumstances, the sale-deed of the year 1927 would be deemed to be the sale-deed obtained by the Vidyapith and for its own benefit from its own income, whether it came from subscription or contribution or grant or from whatever source it might have come. The contention of the defendant-appellant in the W.S. that the sale-deed was forged, was later given up; because its claim shifted to a claim through Badri Nath Verma as a member of the Congress Party. The plea of the defendant in the W.S. was that this land was gifted by Sheikh Khairuddin in the year 1917 to Mazharul Haque. Mazharul Haque had shifted to this land in the year 1917 and built a hut known as Sadaquat Ashram and was living in this hut along with some students of the Engineering College who had revolted against the Principal of the College and had taken shelter and refuge under the guardianship and patronage of Maulana Mazharul Haque. But, when later in the year 1927, this land was given to Bihar Vidyapith through a sale-deed, it clearly indicated that Mazharul Haque was allowed permissive possession of the land and he, of course, was running Sadaquat Ashram. But, later on, the land was sold to Bihar Vidyapith through Badri Nath Verma, its Registrar. If at all, Mazharul Haque was holding this land being President of the BPCC and his land was acquired by a sale-deed for the Congress Party, it is not understandable why the sale-deed was not executed in the name of Mazharul Haque or any member of the Congress Party or in the name of BPCC, itself. So the very fact that the sale-deed was executed in the name of Vidyapith further confirmed the fact that Mazharul Haque was acquiring this land for the Vidyapith and so the name of Badri Nath Verma figured as a vendee in the sale-deed. It has already been seen above that Mazharul Haque was the Chancellor of the Vidyapith and, therefore, he was, perhaps, interested in making the acquisition in the name of Vidyapith and that will explain the name of Badri Nath Verma as the Registrar of the Vidyapith, being the vendee of the land. So the earlier permissive possession of the land by Mazharul Haque, would be converted into a title transferred to the Vidyapith by a willing consent of Mazhrul Haque, rather with his own efforts. The first appellate Court in its findings held that both the plots were the lands acquired by the Vidyapith and it had title over the same. Thus, the finding of the appellate Court were based on evidence afforded by documents produced by the plaintiff-respondent as also the oral evidence adduced by both the parties. I am, therefore, to opine that the findings which were findings of fact, cannot be interfered with by this Court.