Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1201 (JHR)

Guru Dayal Kamar v. Mulia Mahatain

2018-06-11

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 03.07.2013 passed in Title Suit No.84 of 2005 by which the trial court has directed him to prove sale-deed dated 18.01.1972. 2. The petitioner is defendant no.1 in Title Suit No.84 of 2005. The suit was instituted by Mulia Mahatain and others for a decree for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession over schedule-B lands and for a decree of declaration that sale-deed dated 06.07.1980 is void and ineffective in respect of 12 decimals lands comprised under Khata No.46 within plot no.413 at Mauza- Paliadih. It is an admitted position that in the suit reference of sale-deed dated 18.01.1972 has come for the first time in the evidence of Nanu Kumar who was examined as DW-3 by the defendants in the suit. At this stage an application dated 19.04.2012 was filed by the defendants for taking sale-deed dated 18.01.1972 on record. 3. Plea taken by the defendants is that sale-deed dated 18.01.1972 is a registered document more than 30 years old which does not require proof. It appears that objecting to the petition dated 19.04.2012 filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs have taken a plea that besides no reason disclosed by the defendants for not producing this document at the initial stage during his cross-examination DW-3 has failed to depose the name of the vendor, attesting witnesses and other material facts. 4. Perusal of the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 reveals that the plaintiffs'' evidence was closed on 04.08.2009 and thereafter the suit was running for evidence of the defendants, however, at no point in time the defendants filed any application for taking a copy of sale-deed dated 18.01.1972 on record. Still, the trial Judge has allowed the application for taking the sale-deed dated 18.01.1972 in evidence. Since the plaintiffs have not questioned legality of the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 I am not examining sustainability of this order on merits, however, in view of the objections taken by the plaintiffs, I am of the opinion that the trial Judge has rightly directed the defendants to prove the sale-deed dated 18.01.1972. I further find that sufficient time has been granted to the defendants for proving this document inasmuch as they have been granted 3 consecutive dates for proving this document in accordance with law. 5. I further find that sufficient time has been granted to the defendants for proving this document inasmuch as they have been granted 3 consecutive dates for proving this document in accordance with law. 5. In the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. The trial Judge shall proceed in the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. 6. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court through FAX.