Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 629 (JHR)

Santosh Kumar v. Purnima Kumari

2010-05-20

N.N.TIWARI

body2010
Order This second appeal is by the defendant No. 2-appellant-appellant against whom decree was passed by learned trial court. He filed appeal against the said decree. The same has been dismissed, upholding the same. 2. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and also for declaration that the deed of cancellation of sale deed bearing No. 10658/1998 and the deed of gift bearing No. 10659/1998 have not affected the plaintiffs right, title and interest in the said land. 3. The plaintiffs' case was that the land appertaining to Khata No. 26 of Village Sudna, P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau was recorded in the names of Thakur Dayal Mahto, Bharosa Mahto and Runan Mahto all sons of Ratan Mahto in the last survey and settlement record. The three recorded tenants had partitioned the land of Khata No. 26 in equal share. The total area of Plot No. 376 was 14 decimals and the same was allotted to the share of Thakur Dayal Mahto. Thakur Dayal Mahto died leaving behind his only son Falu Mahto. He came in peaceful exclusive possession of the said land of Plot No. 376. Falu Mahto also died leaving behind his sons Tulsi Mahto and Panchu Mahto. The family property was partitioned between Tulsi and Panchu and the said land fell in the share of Tulsi Mahto. His name was mutated in respect of the said land and demand was running. Tulsi Mahto executed registered sale deed and transferred the said land in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 28,500/-. The plaintiffs came in possession of the said land and constructed pucca residential house over the suit land. The plaintiffs and their family members are residing in the said house. The said defendant No. 2 Santosh Kumar maliciously and fraudulently managed to prepare a deed of cancellation dated 13.10.1998 of the sale deed in the name of Defendant No. 1 and got the same registered. On the, same day he got prepared a deed of gift in his name on the basis of the said fraudulent documents, the defendant No. 2 claimed the suit land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. 4. The vendor-defendant No.1 supported the plaintiff and admitted his claim. 5. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit. On the, same day he got prepared a deed of gift in his name on the basis of the said fraudulent documents, the defendant No. 2 claimed the suit land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. 4. The vendor-defendant No.1 supported the plaintiff and admitted his claim. 5. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit. In his written-statement he' stated, inter alia, that the defendant No. 1 voluntarily cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. He had also voluntarily executed deed of gift in favour of the defendant No.2. There was no misrepresentation or fraud by the defendant No.2, as alleged and he has acquired valid right, title in the land. 6. The defendant No.1 in his written statement clearly stated that he has transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs for valuable consideration, by virtue of duly executed and registered sale deed and they have been in possession of the suit land. They have constructed house over the land and have been residing in the house alongwith family members peacefully. 7. The plaintiffs adduced evidences in support of their case. Defendant No.2 after filing written-statement, did not follow the trial and did not adduce any evidence. Learned trial court, considering the .facts and evidences on record, decreed the plaintiffs' suit ex-parte. 8. The defendant No. 2 then preferred appeal in the court of the District Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj. The appeal was transferred to the Additonal District Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II. 9. After hearing the parties learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of learned trial court. 10. The impugned judgment of learned lower appellate court has been assailed on the ground that the findings of learned court below are based on consideration of inadmissible evidence. The plaintiffs failed to prove the registered sale deed and cancellation deed in accordance with law. Certified copies of the said registered documents, have been admitted as evidence. The original register of the Registrar was not called for and proved and the certified copies were marked as exhibits. The said inadmissible documents have been relied on in arriving at the conclusion and recording findings by learned courts below. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered the facts and materials on record. The original register of the Registrar was not called for and proved and the certified copies were marked as exhibits. The said inadmissible documents have been relied on in arriving at the conclusion and recording findings by learned courts below. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered the facts and materials on record. On perusal of the judgment of learned lower appellate court I find that the ground of inadmissibilty of the certified copy of the sale deed was also taken before the said court. Learned lower appellate court has considered the said point and held on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh [2001 (2) JLJR 527(SC)] that the certified copy of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and there is no need to prove the sale deed by examining witness, if the same is registered and a certified copy thereof is produced before the Court. 12. I find no infirmity in the said finding. 13. This court also had occasion to consider as to whether the certified copy of a registered sale deed is admissible in evidence. In Hussaini Mahto and Others vs. Hulas Mahto [reported in 2006(2) JCR 330 (Jhr.)] [: 2006(2) JLJR 114 ] the said question arose for consideration. This Court considered the relevant provisions of law and held that sale deed kept in the office of the Registrar is a public record and certified copy of such document can be proved in evidence. If the certified copy of the registered document is brought before the Court, no further proof of execution of the said document is required. The decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (supra) is also very clear. It has been held that the certified copy of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and such sale deed is not required to be proved by calling a witness. 14. In view of the above I find no error in the impugned judgment giving rise to any substantial question of• law to be decided in Second Appeal by this Court. 15. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.