Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1035 (JHR)

Suleman Mian v. Aurangjeb Mian

2010-11-26

N.N.TIWARI

body2010
Order This Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 passed by Additional District Judge-cum FTC. No.-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 53 of 2005. 2. By the said decree, learned lower appellate court has affirmed and upheld the judgment and decree of learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 3. The appellants were the defendants and the decrees of learned trial court and learned lower appellate court have gone against them. 4. The plaintiffs had filed suit in the Court of Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj being Title Suit No. 35 of 1987 praying decree for declaration that they have got raiyati right in the land fully described in Schedule-A, including plot nos. 190 and 198, which were the subjects of main controversy between the parties, and for confirmation of possession. They also sought for declarations that the sale deed dated 8.12.1986 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and gift deed dated 9.12.1986 are illegal and void as also that the order of mutation and subsequent steps based thereon are illegal and void. 5. According to the plaintiffs, they had acquired the suit land from defendant no. 1 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 3.3.1956 which included plot nos. 190 and 198. But due to clerical mistake in the body of the sale deed, instead of plot no. 190 it was mentioned as 90 and instead of plot no. 198 it was mentioned as 98. After having purchased the said land, the plaintiffs came in peaceful possession of the same and got their names mutated in the revenue record. The plaintiffs claimed that they acquired valid right, title and have been in continuous possession of the said land. 6. The defendants contested the suit. The original defendant no. 1 did not deny execution of the said sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. He had also not denied transfer of plot nos. 190 and 198 to the plaintiff: The original defendant no. 1 died during the pendency of the suit. Even after his death, the present defendants have not denied execution of the sale deed dated 3.3.1956 in favour of plaintiffs. 7. In the trial court, the parties adduced evidences oral and documentary. 8. 190 and 198 to the plaintiff: The original defendant no. 1 died during the pendency of the suit. Even after his death, the present defendants have not denied execution of the sale deed dated 3.3.1956 in favour of plaintiffs. 7. In the trial court, the parties adduced evidences oral and documentary. 8. learned trial court after detailed discussion and consideration of the facts, evidences and materials on record, came to the finding that the plaintiffs have got valid right, title over plot nos. 190 and 198 and that they had, in fact, purchased besides other lands, land of plot Nos. 190 and 198, but due to clerical mistake, instead of plot nos.190 and 198 Plot nos. 90 and 98 appeared in the deed. learned trial court held that the plaintiffs have valid cause of action and have been able to establish their case. The suit was decreed in favour of plaintiffs. 9. The defendants thereafter preferred appeal before the District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj being Title Appeal No. 53 of 2005. 10. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by Additional District Judgecum-FTC.-III, Palamau at Daltonganj. Learned lower appellate court after hearing the parties, thoroughly appraised and considered the facts, evidences and materials on record and came to the finding that the plaintiffs have got raiyati right over the suit land and that there was clerical mistake in the registered sale deed dated 3.3.1956 mentioning plot no. 90 instead of plot no. 190 and plot no. 98' instead of plot no. 198. Learned lower appellate court thus affirmed and upheld the judgment and decree of learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 11. In the instant appeal, the appellants have assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that there was no proper appreciation of evidences on record and that learned courts below have erroneously held that there was clerical mistake in the registered sale deed mentioning plot no. 90 instead of plot no.190 and plot no. 98 instead of plot no. 198, though there is no sufficient evidence to support the said findings. According to the appellants, the findings of learned courts below are perverse and based on assumption and surmises. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment. 90 instead of plot no.190 and plot no. 98 instead of plot no. 198, though there is no sufficient evidence to support the said findings. According to the appellants, the findings of learned courts below are perverse and based on assumption and surmises. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment. I find that learned lower appellate court has fully discussed the facts and evidences on record and recorded a detailed reason for upholding the judgment and decree of learned trial court and dismissing the appeal. I find no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that there was no proper appreciation of evidence in the judgment of learned lower appellate court and the same is based on assumption and conjecture. Learned courts bp.low have thoroughly scrutinized and appraised the evidences and materials on record and have recorded their findings supported by evidence and sound reasons. 13. There are concurrent findings of facts by two courts. I find no error in the impugned judgment and decree or• any ground made out giving rise to any substantial questions of law to be decided in this Second Appeal. 14. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.