KALI CHARAN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.08.2009 and decree dated 25.08.2009 passed and signed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with Title Appeal No. 34 of 2008 whereby the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 31.03.2008 and decree dated 04.04.2008 passed and signed by learned Munsif, Jamshedpur in connection with Title Suit No. 69 of 1997. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 09.10.1975 from its true and lawful owner Sardar Mahender Singh s/o Kishan Singh and after taking possession he constructed a house thereon and has been enjoying peaceful possession over the same. It is disclosed that Mahendra Singh purchased the suit property by registered sale deed No. 1855/1960 dated 14.04.1960 from one Preetam Kaur w/o Sardar Gurmukh Singh and said Preetam Kaur had purchased the suit property from one P. Patnayak. The cause of action for filing the suit arose on and from 28.02.1997 when the plaintiff was threatened by Karmchari that the plaintiff would be dispossessed because the property is recorded in the name of State of Bihar. The plaintiff did not have knowledge about survey settlement operation, therefore, he could not take step under Sec. 90 of the C.N.T. Act in time.

(2.) On the other hand, case of the defendant in the court below was that the suit filed in its present form is not maintainable. No cause of action ever arose. Neither the present vendor of the plaintiff nor the earlier vendors who had transferred the suit land had any right, title or interest over the suit property and none of them were or are lawful owner. The suit land is recorded in the name of State of Bihar. Only to create the cause of action, imaginary date has been given that Karmchari had threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit property. Learned trial court, after recording statement of witnesses and considering the documents, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Title Suit No. 69 of 1997, preferred Title Appeal No. 34 of 2008 but could not get any favourable order and the appeal also stood dismissed. Admittedly, plaintiff did not acquire valid right and title over the suit property from its purchase from the vendor because the vendor was not having valid title over the suit property and likewise, the previous vendors who had transferred the suit property were also not having their title over the suit property. There is concurrent findings of both the courts below and the substantial question proposed by the appellant do not appear to be formulated for just decision of this appeal. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.