SHIVA BAHADUR DAHAL Vs. DAMBAR CHETTRI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal assails the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Judge, Special Division -II, Gangtok, in Title Suit No. 14 of 2013 dated 31.3.2014, by which the Learned Trial Court dismissed the Suit of the Appellant. A Cross Objection has been filed by the Respondents No. 2 and 3, assailing the decisions of the Learned Trial Court in Issues No. 4, 8, 10 and 11. Both the Appeal and the Cross Objection are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

(2.) THE facts shorn of details are that the Appellant (Plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court) is the son of Late Ratna Bahadur Dahal. The Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 (Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 before the Learned Trial Court) are his nephews being the sons of his sister, Pavitra Chettri, who was arrayed as Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid Title Suit and passed away during the course of the trial, (Hereinafter referred to as Defendant No. 1). It is averred by the Appellant that the Defendant No. 1 was married twice, Respondent No. 1 being her son through her first husband, Gopal Chettri (Poudyal), while the Respondents No. 2 and 3 are her sons through her second husband, Deewan Singh Bora of Uttarakhand, whom she married in the year 1962 and resided with outside Sikkim, leaving behind Respondent No. 1 in the care of her father, Late Ratna Bahadur Dahal. That, Late Ratna Bahadur Dahal, owned several plots of land at 7th Mile, Samdur Block, East Sikkim including Plot No. 336 measuring .8640 hectares from which vide a Gift Deed dated 23.12.1989, land measuring .1330 hectares was gifted by him to the Respondent No. 1, inter alia with the Eastern boundary as hereunder;

(3.) THAT , subsequently without the Appellant's knowledge, the Gift Deed dated 23.12.1989 was registered and the gifted land mutated in the name of Defendant No. 1 (who had married a non -Sikkimese), in violation of the Sikkim State Rules Registration of Document, 1930. Consequently, there can be no registration or mutation of lands in the name of the Respondents No. 2 and 3. That, the document is interpolated.