Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1064 (JHR)

Gobardhan Bera v. Jiten Nayak

2018-05-11

RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents. The present second appeal is arising out of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 2. Title Suit No. 23 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein for the following reliefs:- "i. for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and declaring the sale deed No. 891 dated 23.03.1968 executed by Hari Ram Nayak and Chunku Nayak void abinitio not binding on the plaintiff and defendants not acquiring any right, title and interest over suit land by virtue of this sale deed. ii. For the confirmation of possession over the suit land or in alternative for recovery of possession. iii. For the cost of the suit. iv. for any other equitable relief." 3. The Trial Court has framed various issues including issue no. 6 which is quoted hereinbelow:- "(VI) Whether the sale deed no. 891 dated 23.03.1968 executed by Hari Ram Nayek and Chunku Nayek in fvour of defendant no. 1 is void ab initio." 4. The Trial Court has returned the finding that the sale deed no. 891 dated 23.03.1968 amounts to fraud and otherwise also in violation of Section 46 of the CNT Act and as such, the same is void, ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiff and thus, this issue no. 6 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 5. Being aggrieved, appellant/original defendant has filed the appeal being Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015. The Appellate Court has framed two points, which are as follows:- "Point No. 1- Is the sale deed No. 891 dt. 23/3/68 void ab-initio. Point No. 2:-is the plaintiff/respondent entitled for the suit land with declaration of his possession over the same." 6. The First Appellate Court has confirmed the findings returned by the Trial Court. 7. In view of the above discussion made and concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. I.A. No. 4464 of 2016 also stand disposed of.