KAZIM SHER Vs. JASWANT DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment. They arise out of four suits giving rise to common questions of law and fact. The plaintiff instituted the suits for recovery of the unpaid consideration money with respect to the sale deeds in favour of the various defendants. All the four sale deeds are in favour of the various respondents and dated the 1st of November, 1945 -Exhibit A in all the four suits. The second sale deed was executed on the 21st of November, 1945, ignoring the first set of sale deeds, in favour of Sidheshwar Prasad Singh and others. The respondents holding the sale deeds (Exhibit A) started a proceeding for compulsory registration of the sale deeds executed in their favour and the documents were ordered to be registered on the 11th of May, 1946, by the District Sub -Registrar, under Section 75 of the Indian Registration Act. On the 25th of August, 1947, a dispute arose in land registration department between the two sets of purchasers and the names of these defendants were mutated in Register D. An appeal was preferred against that to the Collector of Patna district, who by his order dated the 17th of January, 1948, upheld the order of the Land Registration Deputy Collector. The Commissioner of Patna Division also upheld the order of the Collector.

(2.) Sidheshwari Prasad Singh and others, who were aggrieved by the order of the land registration department, instituted Title Suit No. 48 of 1949 in which they impleaded not only the present defendants -purchasers under the prior sale deeds but also the present plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the milklat share in village Jagatpur Nazir, Touzi No. 2422 and village Bad -aura, Touzi No. 15380. The suit was tried by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, where it was decreed by judgment dated the 30th of April, 1952. It was held that the sale deeds dated the 1st November, 1945, in favour of the present defendants -respondents were not genuine, valid and for consideration. An appeal was preferred from that judgment and decree to this Court. The appeal was disposed of by a learned single Judge who allowed it by judgment dated the 4th of August 1958, holding that the sale deeds in favour of the present defendants were genuine and valid but Sidheshwar Prasad Singh and others were entitled to get refund of the consideration money paid to the plaintiff -vendor. A Letters Patent appeal was preferred by the vendor being L.P.A. No. 79 of 1951 from the judgment of the learned single Judge, but the appeal was dismissed on the 27th of April, 1959. In the circumstances, the plaintiff brought the present suits for recovery of the unpaid purchase money in respect of the sale deeds in their favour.

(3.) The defendants -respondents admitted the execution of the sale deeds in their favour. They pleaded inter alia that although the sale deeds were duly executed in their favour by the plaintiff, he executed another bogus sale deed on the 21st of November, 1945, with regard to a part of his milkiat interest in favour of Sidheshwar Prasad Singh and others for a consideration of Rs. 5,449/15/ -. They narrated thereafter the course which the events took with regard to the compulsory registration and the title suit instituted by Sidheshwar Prasad Singh and how ultimately the Letters Patent appeal by the present plaintiff was dismissed. They also admitted that certain amount of unpaid purchase money remained to be paid by them to the plaintiff which they were ready to pay, but the plaintiff did not endeavour to claim the unpaid purchase money within a period of 12 years from the 1st of November, 1945, when the sale deeds were executed, or even from the 11th of May, 1946, when the order of compulsary registration was passed by the District Sub -Registrar. The suit having been instituted in 1959, it might well be contended that the suits were beyond a period of 12 years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action and hence were barred by limitation. But the contention on behalf of the appellant was that so long as the litigation was going on between Sidheshwar Prasad Singh and these defendants, the plaintiff could not claim the payment of the unpaid consideration money by these defendants. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh's suit was decreed on the 30th of April, 1952, by the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna. It is true no doubt that in the first instance the cause of action did arise on the 11th of May, 1946, when the documents in favour of these defendants were ordered to be compulsorily registered, but that cause of action became defunct and there was no question of further running of time against the vendor. It was only on the 4th of August, 1958, when the learned single Judge of this Court allowed First Appeal No. 264 of 1952, that the plaintiff's right to recover the consideration money revived. The present suits are within three years from that date and hence they are within time.