Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1662 (RAJ)

Ranjeet Singh v. Gram Panchayat Gahlota

2013-09-19

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Having failed both before the trial court and the first appellate court in his suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 31.08.1968, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') has filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 2. Heard. Perused the judgment and decreed dated 06.11.2003, passed by the trial court as upheld by the first appellate court under its judgment and decree dated 01.03.2011. Considered. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that a registered sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 executed by his father one Chitar in respect of land situated in khasra No. 1019 admeasuring 1 bigha 14 biswa, khasra No. 1018/1917 admeasuring 11 biswa aggregating to 2 bigha 5 biswa was vitiated on a ground of fraud and misrepresentation by the erstwhile Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gahlota (vendee), Panchayat Samiti Dudu, District Jaipur. It was alleged that Chitar had only intended to execute a lease-deed, but was misled into executing the sale-deed aforesaid which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dudu. It was submitted that the transaction on the face of the registered deed being a sale - notwithstanding it was a lease-deed. The plaintiff agitated multiple grounds to have the sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 cancelled inter alia stating that the factum of inadequate consideration of Rs. 1,850/- vitiated it, the continued possession at all times of Chitar and his legal heirs over the land purportedly sold under the sale-deed, the subsisting revenue entries in the names of Chitar and his sons and also the electricity connection in their names all were pointers and indicative of the transaction not being sale, but a lease. It was further submitted that the limitations in the sale-deed on future sale/s imposed upon the vendee as also the condition of the use of the land transferred under the purported sale established that the transaction under registered deed dated 31.08.1968 was not a sale. On notice, a written statement of denial was filed by the Gram Panchayat Gahlota. It was stated that the registered sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 was duly executed by the recorded khatedar Chitar in the presence of two witnesses and also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dudu. The Sub-Registrar, Dudu had read out the contents of the sale-deed to the vender Chitar and only on his understanding and approval registered it. At the relevant time, the agreed consideration of Rs. The Sub-Registrar, Dudu had read out the contents of the sale-deed to the vender Chitar and only on his understanding and approval registered it. At the relevant time, the agreed consideration of Rs. 1,850/- had passed from the vender to the vendee and was the price mutually agreed. It was submitted that Gram Panchayat Gahlota, was in possession of the disputed land admeasuring 2 Bigha 5 Biswa which was being used for running a public school and a well therein used for drinking water purpose both of the villagers and their cattle. It was further stated that laying of a suit for cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 in the year 1992 was palpably beyond limitation and the suit was deserving a dismissal on this count alone. It was denied that at any time on 11.09.1991 or otherwise as claimed by the plaintiff, notices to vacate the land purchased under the registered sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 had been issued by the Gram Panchayat Gahlota to the plaintiff occasioning a cause of action arising thereupon for laying of the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed in February, 1992. It was further submitted that even otherwise the suit against the Gram Panchayat was not maintainable in view of Section 79(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1953') in view of the fact that mandatory two months prior notice to the Gram Panchayat before laying of a suit against it was not admittedly issued. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed six issues and found against the plaintiff. It was held that the registered sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 was proved to have been validly and lawfully executed. The trial court also noted that the plaintiff's witnesses had in no manner whatsoever been able to impugn the sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 to warrant its cancellation by way of declaration sought in regard thereto. The trial court however found the possession of the plaintiff on the disputed land, but held that a challenge to the sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 in the year 1992 was way beyond limitation provided under the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore not sustainable. The trial court however found the possession of the plaintiff on the disputed land, but held that a challenge to the sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 in the year 1992 was way beyond limitation provided under the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore not sustainable. In coming to its conclusion, the trial court disbelieved the purported notice dated 11.09.1991 by the Gram Panchayat Gahlota to the plaintiff as alleged by him to provide a fresh lease of life to the cause of action and a filing of the suit in February, 1992 within limitation. The trial court further found that aside of the aforesaid even otherwise the suit was hit by Section 79(2)(a) of the Act of 1953 as admittedly two months prior notice before laying of the suit against Gram Panchayat had neither been issued to the Panchayat nor proved before the trial court. Consequently by the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2003, the suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 was dismissed. An appeal under Section 96 CPC to the first appellate court was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2011. 5. A perusal of the judgments of the courts below clearly indicates that no occasion whatsoever arises to entertain the present second appeal arises. The sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 (Ex-16) was held to be validly executed by Chitar in favour of the Gram Panchayat Gahlota and there was no evidence of any probative worth at the instance of the plaintiff to impugn sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 albeit the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the land in sold. In my considered opinion, the issue of possession was unrelated to the validity of the sale-deed dated 31.08.1968. If the plaintiff had any right on the basis of possession adverse to the interest of the Gram Panchayat as the lawful owner under the registered sale-deed dated 31.08.1968, it was for him to set up such a case. No such case was pleaded and the suit laid by the plaintiff was a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 simpliciter without any claim to title by prescription. No such case was pleaded and the suit laid by the plaintiff was a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 simpliciter without any claim to title by prescription. Further in my considered opinion, both the trial court and the first appellant court have rightly concluded from the evidence on record a challenge to the registered sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 by way of a suit laid on 04.02.1992 was palpably beyond limitation notwithstanding the failed efforts of the plaintiff to finding cause of action in the purported notice dated 11.09.1991 for possession allegedly issued by the Gram Panchayat which in any event for whatsoever its worth was not even proved from the evidence of the plaintiff before the trial court. Limitation it is trite cannot be subjectively construed. It begins to run from the commencement of the cause of action. In this case, it would be 31.08.1968 when the sale-deed was registered. It is also well settled that in respect of a registered document as the impugned sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 was, knowledge thereof effective the said date of registration would be attributable to the aggrieved party. The suit laid by the plaintiff for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 31.08.1968 was thus obviously on the face of it hit by limitation. I am also in full agreement with the findings of the learned courts below that the suit against the Gram Panchayat for cancellation of sale-deed whereby property in dispute was transferred to the Gram Panchayat could not be laid without compliance with Section 79(2)(a) of the Act 1953 whereunder two months prior notice to the Panchayat was an essential pre-requisite. The plaintiff on his part had failed even to aver or prove that such a notice did indeed emanate from the plaintiff to the defendant Gram Panchayat. 6. In my considered opinion, in the facts obtaining, no substantial question of law is made out. The concurrent findings of the courts below on the validity of the sale-deed dated 31.08.1968, on limitation as also with regard to non-compliance of Section 79(2)(a) of the Act 1953 are based on the evidence before the trial court. No occasion to exercise the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC arises in this second appeal. 7. Consequently, the second appeal is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******