Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 851 (JHR)

Krishna Prasad v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

2010-09-01

N.N.TIWARI

body2010
Order This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge. Jamshedpur. By the said judgment learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 164/1992. 2. The plaintiff-appellant-appellant had filed the said Title Suit praying for declaration that the sale deed bearing No. 7408 dated 10:11.1967 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of respondent M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. is a forged document and the same is ab-initio void. He had also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. 3. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 2149 corresponding to New Plot No. 173 in Ward No.12, Thana No.1153 of Mouza-Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum measuring about 0.20 acres. The said land has been recorded in his name the plaintiff and he has been in continuous possession of the same. He has not executed sale deed dated 10.11 .1967 in favour of the respondent and the alleged sale deed is a forged document. 4. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. It was, inter alia, contended that the plaintiff had transferred the suit land by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 10.11.1967 for a valuable consideration and also on condition that the Company shall allot two shops and residential plot in Golmuri area and shall provide employment to his son. The defendant had accepted both the conditions and over and above payment of consideration amount, two shops of residential plots were allotted to the plaintiff in Golmuri area bearing holding No.3 by letter dated 25.11.1967 and one shop-cum-residential holding No. 14 in the name of his wife Smt. Sahodri Devi by letter dated 25.11.2007. The plaintiff's son Kishori Prasad was also absorbed in TISCO Ltd. where he is still working. The plaintiff had also delivered possession of the same to the defendant. On the basis of the said registered sale deed the name of the defendant was mutated and they are paying rent of the said land. 5. The plaintiff's son Kishori Prasad was also absorbed in TISCO Ltd. where he is still working. The plaintiff had also delivered possession of the same to the defendant. On the basis of the said registered sale deed the name of the defendant was mutated and they are paying rent of the said land. 5. Learned trial court on thorough appraisal of the facts and evidences adduced by the parties came to the finding that there was valid transfer of land by the plaintiff to the defendant and there was no fraud on the part of the defendant. The deed was executed by the plaintiff himself on accepting consideration amount. The respondent acquired valid right, title and has been in possession of the suit land. Learned trial court, thus, dismissed the suit. 6. The plaintiff-appellant preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree of learned trial court in the Court of District Judge, Jamshedpur being Title Appeal No. 11 of 2001. The said appeal was heard and decided by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur by the impugned judgment. Learned lower appellate court, after hearing the parties, thoroughly scrutinized the evidences and recorded his finding on all the issues. After a detailed discussion of the facts, materials and evidences on record learned lower appellate court came to the finding that the plaintiff himself admitted to have received Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of the sale of the suit land to the defendant. He further admitted that he has received two shops-cum-residential accommodations in Golmuriand his son was. also given employment by the defendant-Company. Learned lower appellate court found that the defendant-Company has produced cogent evidence in support of the defence that the land in suit was transferred to them validly and the same is valid and legal. Learned lower appellate court, thus, concurred with the finding of learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 7. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that learned courts below have not duly and properly considered the ground of fraud pleaded in the plaint and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that he had admitted to have received an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as consideration for transfer of the suit land, two residential plots and one shop and residential holding in Golmuri and employment of his son by the defendant-company. 2,000/- as consideration for transfer of the suit land, two residential plots and one shop and residential holding in Golmuri and employment of his son by the defendant-company. The plaintiff has been able to prove that there was no voluntary and valid transfer and that the deed was not executed by him, but the execution of the deed has been inferred by learned courts below only on the basis of the said alleged admission of accepting Rs. 2,000/- and allotment of two holdings in Golmuri. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant I perused and considered the findings recorded by the courts below. I find that the plaintiff has not disputed the existence of the registered sale deed. The allegation on the plaintiff is that it was a forged document and was fraudulently obtained. However, there is no pleading giving material facts and particulars constituting the element of fraud in the said transaction. The learned courts below have found that the defendant has been able to prove the registered sale deed as also his continuous possession since after the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff has not been able to prove any element of fraud in the said transaction. The plaintiff could not also bring any cogent evidence in support of the allegation that the sale deed is a forged document. The plaintiff was himself examined as PW. 1. He has admitted in his deposition that he had accepted consideration amount for executing the sale deed and he was also given land and commercial-cum-residential holdings in Golmuri area and employment to his son. The courts below have concurrently found that the sale deed is valid and legal and that the same was executed by the plaintiff himself after accepting consideration amount. The said findings of both the courts are based on due appreciation of facts and evidences on record. 9. I find no error in the impugned judgment giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in second appeal. I find no merit in this appeal. 10. This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. .