SUDHANGSHU BHUSHAN KATRIAR Vs. SHANKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dtd. 2/6/2022 passed by learned Sub Judge V, Danapur in Title Suit No. 169 of 2018 whereby the plaint of the Plaintiff-Appellant was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as "CPC") as the same was barred by limitation.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the suit property originally formed part of the land owned and developed by Bitra Vibhag Sahkari Karamchari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., which carved the land into several sub-blocks and allotted plots to its members. The plaintiff-appellant, Sudhanshu Bhushan Katriyar, being a member of the said society, was allotted the Schedule-I property and acquired right, title, interest and possession over the same through a registered sale deed dtd. 4/5/1988. The property was duly mutated in his name, and he continued to pay rent to the State of Bihar for which rent receipts were regularly issued. According to the plaintiff, he never sold, transferred or otherwise alienated the Schedule-I property in favour of any person. The dispute arose when certain anti-social elements allegedly impersonated the Plaintiff-Appellant and executed a registered sale deed (Bainama) dtd. 30/9/1995 in favour of Defendant-respondent No. 1. On the basis of the said document, Defendant-respondent No. 1 claimed ownership over the suit property. Subsequently, the property was transferred through a series of transactions. A sale deed dtd. 20/12/2010 was executed in favour of defendant-respondent No. 2, followed by another sale deed dtd. 26/4/2011 and ultimately a sale deed dtd. 3/8/2017 was executed in favour of Defendant- respondent No. 3. Corresponding mutation proceedings were also carried out in favour of the successive transferees.

(3.) According to the Plaintiff-Appellant, when Defendant- respondent No. 1 started asserting ownership over the suit property on the strength of the alleged purchase, he was compelled to institute Complaint Case No. 134(C)/2001. However, the Plaintiff-Appellant stated that he was not aware of the complete chain of fraudulent transactions and mutation proceedings at that time. In order to protect his interest in the property, he subsequently executed a registered Power of Attorney dtd. 20/1/2018 in favour of Raghvendra Kumar, authorising him to look after matters relating to the suit property. Inquiries were conducted regarding the status of the property. The Plaintiff- Appellant applied for certified copies of the mutation orders on 29/1/2018 and, after obtaining them, applied for certified copies of the relevant sale deeds on 2/2/2018, 6/2/2018, 8/2/2018 and 9/2/2018. Upon examining those documents, he allegedly discovered that the property had been transferred through a series of fraudulent and forged transactions and that the names of the Defendant-respondents had been entered into the government records on the basis thereof. According to the Plaintiff-Appellant, the cause of action for the suit arose in the year 2001 when plaintiff lodged Complaint Case No. 134(c)/2001 in the Court of A.C.J.M., Danapur in which due to absconding of accused person on declaring absconder, record was deposited in record room and the said case continued till 26/6/2015 and further on 20/1/2018 the power of attorney holder got knowledge about alleged mutation order on 29/1/2018 and also got knowledge of alleged deeds in the first and second week of February, 2018, the plaintiff- appellant challenged the mutation orders by filing Mutation Appeal Nos. 70, 71 and 72 of 2018 before the LRDC, Danapur. The appeals were admitted and remained pending for adjudication. The Plaintiff-Appellant further alleged that after learning about the pendency of the mutation appeals, Defendant-respondent No. 3, accompanied by anti-social elements, forcibly entered the partially constructed house standing on the suit property and attempted to dispossess him. Although complaints were made before the local police authorities and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Danapur, no effective action was taken which led the Plaintiff-Appellant to institute Title (Partition) Suit No. 169 of 2018 on 1/5/2018 before the Court of the learned Sub Judge V, Danapur seeking declaration that the sale deed dtd. 30/9/1995, the subsequent sale deeds dtd. 20/12/2010, 26/4/2011 and 3/8/2017, and the consequential mutation orders were forged, fraudulent, void and not binding upon him, together with other consequential reliefs relating to the suit property.