Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 886 (JHR)

Madan Modi v. Masomat Tara Devi Be

2011-09-15

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal was 'admitted framing the following substantial questions of law:- (I) Whether both the Courts below have erred in law in declaring the title of the plaintiffs on the basis of Sada sale- deed of the year 1924 in absence of documentary evidence in support of their possession over the land? (ll) Whether the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence adduced by the defendants while deciding the title over the suit land '? 2. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed Title Suit No. 46/1989 in the Court of Sub-Judge-IV, Hazaribag seeking declaration of their right, title and possession over Schedule 'A' land of the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs case in short was that Plot No. 1701 appertaining to khata No. 231 measuring an area of 2 decimals of village Parasi. P.S. Ichak, district Hazaribag was acquired by father of the plaintiffs by virtue of a Sada sale- deed dated 5.3.1924 for a consideration of Rs.51/-. The plaintiffs' father came in possession and constructed a house over the said plot. After the death of the plaintiffs' father in 1930, the plaintiffs inherited the land and the house and they have been in peaceful possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have legal right, title and continuous possession openly and adversely to all concerned and they also perfected their title by adverse possession. In the year 1989 the defendants started creating trouble in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs with the help of muscle men and threatened to dispossess them from the suit property which gave rise to the cause of action for the suit. 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants took several legal and technical grounds against the maintainability of the suit and slated. inter alia. that the suit land Was recorded as Gair Mazarua. Khas. The defendants' ancestor Fuchi/Modi had come in possession of 13 decimals of suit Plot No.1701 including the suit land by virtue of .settlement. Fuchi Modi had constructed a mud-built house in which the defendants have been residing. The story of transfer of the land to the plaintiffs' father is false and baseless. Fuchi Modi died leaving behind his son Naro Modi and the defendants are sons of Naro Modi. The defendants have valid right. title over the land by virtue of the settlement and their continuous possession. The story of transfer of the land to the plaintiffs' father is false and baseless. Fuchi Modi died leaving behind his son Naro Modi and the defendants are sons of Naro Modi. The defendants have valid right. title over the land by virtue of the settlement and their continuous possession. No constriction was ever made by the plaintiffs over the suit land. The plaintiffs have no right title or possession over the same. The suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the said pleadings learned lower appellate Court framed several issues. Both the parties adduced evidences. 6. On thorough discussions and considerations of the pleadings and the evidences on record. learned trial Court decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have got valid right title over the suit land and they have been in possession thereof since the date of purchase of land by their father. Learned Court below further held that Sada sale-deed for Rs.51/- dated 5.3.1924 (Exbt.2) did not require any registration. The sale-deed was valid and the same was followed by possession of the purchaser. Learned trial Court decreed the suit. 7. The defendants, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of learned trial Court. preferred appeal before the District Judge. Hazaribag being Title Appeal No.19/1995, 8. The said appeal was finally heard and disposed of by Addition' II District Judge, FTC-VI. Hazaribag. Learned lower appellate Court heard the parties and considered the facts and the grounds taken by the appellants. Learned Court independently scrutinized the facts evidences and materials on record and recorded its finding concurring with the finding of facts arrived at by learned trial Court. Learned lower appellate Court held that there was ample evidence to hold that the plaintiffs' father had validly purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 51/ - by virtue of an unregistered sale-deed' dated 5.3,1924 and came and continued in possession of the same. After his death. the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession of the same. He held that learned lower Court has lightly decreed the plaintiffs' suit and there is no infirmity or illegality in his judgment and decree. Learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 9. In the instant appeal. After his death. the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession of the same. He held that learned lower Court has lightly decreed the plaintiffs' suit and there is no infirmity or illegality in his judgment and decree. Learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 9. In the instant appeal. the appellants sought to assail the impugned 'judgment and decree mainly on the ground that learned Courts below have erroneously decreed the plaintiffs' suit on the basis of the 'sale-deed which was not registered and that the evidences have not been properly appreciated by them in arriving at their findings. 10. I have heard Mr. S. Srivastava. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Manjul Prasad. senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record. 11. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land' was acquired by their father by virtue of un-registered sale-deed on payment of consideration of Rs. 51/- followed by delivery of possession. 12. Mr. Srivastava submitted that title to the land was not conveyed by unregistered deed as any creation. transfer of extinction of title in an immovable property is valid only by virtue of a registered deed. 13. Section 18 of the Registration Act deals with the documents of which registration is optional. It runs as follows ;- "18. Documents of which registration is optional.-Any of the following documents may be registered under this Act. namely ;- la) Instruments (other than instruments of gift and wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent. of a value less then one hundred rupees to or in immovable property; (b) instruments acknowledging the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, Declaration, Assignment limitation or extinction of any such right. title or interest; (c) leases of immovable property for any term not exceeding one year, and leases exempted under Section 17; [(cc) instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create. declare. assign. limit or extinguish. whether in present or in future. any right. title or interest. whether vested or contingent. of a value less than one hundred rupees. declare. assign. limit or extinguish. whether in present or in future. any right. title or interest. whether vested or contingent. of a value less than one hundred rupees. to or in immovable property;] (d) instruments (other than wills)• which purport or operate to create. declare. assign. limit or extinguish any right. title or interest to or in movable property; (e) wills; and (f) all other documents not required by Section 17 to be registered." 14. In view of the provision of Section 18(a) it is clear that the sale-deed which is valued less then Rs.100/- is not compulsorily registrable and the same cannot be held to be an illegal or incompetent document. 15. In the instant case the sale-deed Is of the year 1924. by virtue of which. July 2 decimals of land were conveyed for a value of Rs. 51/-. The said transfer. thus, cannot be held to be illegal or incapable of conveying title on the purchaser. 16. In view of the said clear provision of law question No. 1 framed by this Court at the time of admission cannot be said to be substantial question of law. Any way the same is answered in negative holding that learned Courts below have not committed any error in declaring title of the plaintiffs on the basis of the said unregistered sale-deed of the year 1924\ by recording concurrent finding of possession in favour of the plaintiffs. 17. Having closely perused the impugned judgments of learned Courts below. I find that the facts and evidences on record have been discussed and appreciated In detail by the Courts below arid there is no error or illegality in appreciation of evidence or recording finding on the basis of evidences on record. 18. Question No.2. thus, framed by this Court, though does not come in the category of substantial question of law is answered In affirmative. It Is held that the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence adduced by the defendants while deciding the case and have properly arrived at their findings. 19. In view of the above. I find no merit in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.