Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2043 (JHR)

Lalan Tiwari v. Madhusudan Lal

2017-11-27

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
ORDER : Aggrieved of order dated 8.4.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 2003, whereby application dated 5.2.2014 seeking leave of the Court for exhibiting documents has been allowed, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Title Suit No. 37 of 2003 was instituted for a decree of declaration of plaintiffs easementary right for use of suit land as road, that is, for ingress and egress from their residential house and for a direction upon the defendants to remove the construction(s) if found raised by the defendants over the suit land. A decree for permanent restraint upon the defendants not to make any construction over any portion of the suit land and from causing obstruction to the plaintiffs to use the said land has also been sought. The plaintiffs claimed that they purchased 9½ decimals land in Plot No. 692 within Khata No. 34, Tauzi No. 51, Khewat No.1, Revenue Thana No. 189 appertaining to Khas Mahal Holding No. 1166 situated over Municipal Ward No. 3 of Mouza-Jail Hata, Abadganj, at Daltonganj, District-Palamau through registered sale deed dated 9.1.1976 executed by Mossomat Gayatri Kuer for consideration and they came in possession over the same as rightful owners. The plaintiffs have disclosed that Plot No. 692 originally belonged to Jaga Ram and Sheo Ram, both sons of Thakur Ram. Jaga Ram sold some portion of the said plot to Bhola Sao and Deep Narayan Sao who in turn sold 0.03 decimals out of 11 % decimals from Plot No. 692 and 6 decimals in Plot No. 693 to Smt. Umasharan-defendant no. 2 jointly through the registered sale seed dated 10.9.1975. The defendants denying that plaintiff no. 1 was Karta of the joint family, pleaded that the plaintiff no. 2 who is one of the purchasers has 1/3 interest in the agricultural land purchased on 9.1.1976 which she held on her own individual/independent capacity. The claim of the plaintiffs that they made purchase on 9.1.1976 jointly was denied. Plaintiff No. 1 has been described as pleader clerk of notoriety associated with shirista of late S.N. Tripathy. The defendants also pleaded that by virtue of sale deed dated 10.9.1975 they purchased 0.09 acres agricultural land comprised under Plot Nos. 692 and 693 from Bhola Sao and Deep Narayan Sao for construction of a dwelling house. Plaintiff No. 1 has been described as pleader clerk of notoriety associated with shirista of late S.N. Tripathy. The defendants also pleaded that by virtue of sale deed dated 10.9.1975 they purchased 0.09 acres agricultural land comprised under Plot Nos. 692 and 693 from Bhola Sao and Deep Narayan Sao for construction of a dwelling house. When the suit was posted for the defendants' evidence which had commenced on 15.9.2012 and the defendants had examined three witnesses, application dated 5.2.2014 for exhibiting certified copy of registered sale deeds dated 12.1.1989, 14.6.1975 and original correction slip of Mutation Case No. 49 of 1980-81 with original correction slip of Mutation Case No. 34 of 1991-92 was filed. In the written statement, the defendants have not asserted that they acquired land in Plot Nos. 692 and 693 through registered sale deeds dated 12.1.1989 and 14.6.1975 rather, they have specifically pleaded that they acquired 0.09 acres agricultural land in Plot Nos. 692 and 693 through registered sale deed dated 10.9.1975. In the written statement, it is also not pleaded by the defendants that registered sale deeds dated 12.1.1989 and 14.6.1975 are not in their possession. Their claim is not founded on these two sale deeds. Insofar as, grant of leave under sub-rule 3 to Rule 14 of Order VII CPC is concerned, the Court cannot permit a party to exhibit a document on which claim of the party is not based and the said document, thus, would have no bearing on the lis between the parties. Obviously, no issues could have been framed on the genuineness, validity and admissibility of sale deeds dated 12.1.1989 and 14.6.1975. No doubt, leave can be granted for producing a public document, but then the document again must have a reasonable connection to pleadings of the parties. An apparent error which has been committed by the trial Judge appears where the trial Judge has recorded that "it appears that description of the documents was mentioned in the written statement of defendants so it appears that it was not surprising to the plaintiffs regarding filing of the documents". The trial court has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it. 3. Finding serious error in the impugned order dated 8.4.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 2003, the same is set aside. The trial court has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it. 3. Finding serious error in the impugned order dated 8.4.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 2003, the same is set aside. The documents mentioned in application dated 5.2.2014 shall be excluded from consideration, and the trial shall proceed expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. The writ petition stands allowed.