Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1776 (JHR)

Ranjit Singhdeo v. Kamlabai Rathore

2018-08-08

RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Appellants are original plaintiffs. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that their predecessor, namely, Tarini Pd Singhdeo and Loknath Singhdeo has sold the land to the defendant no.1-Kamala Bai Rathore in the year 1974. 4. It has been further pleaded that in spite of purchasing the land, defendant no.1 was not in capacity to take physically possession of the land and as such physical possession of the land has remained with the predecessor of the plaintiffs. It has been further pleaded that in the year 1987, after the death of Tarini Pd Singhdeo and Loknath Singhdeo their wives namely, Bisheswari Devi and Basanti Devi approached the defendant no.1 for purchasing the suit land and a consideration amount of Rs.60,000/-was paid. As there was Durga Puja Holiday, the sale deed could not be registered, accordingly an agreement was entered into between the parties on 30.09.1987 and it was promised by the defendant no.1 that registry will be done after Durga Puja vacation. 5. It is case of the plaintiffs that thereafter they have remained in physical possession of the suit land. When the suit land has been sold to defendant no.2 by sale deed No.4274 dated 04.10.2004, they came into action and thereafter the present suit has been filed in the year 2006. 6. Defendant no.1 has taken plea that the agreement itself is forged as she never entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs and further she has denied the receiving of Rs.60,000/-. The possession of the plaintiffs have also been disputed and it has been pleaded in the written statement that being the rightful owner, she was in possession of the suit land and the same has been sold to the defendant no.2 vide sale deed No.4274 dated 04.10.2004. 7. The defendant no.2 has more or less adopted the WS filed on behalf of the defendant no.1. 8. The trial court has framed various issues, which are as follows: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form or for the reliefs claimed? (ii) Have plaintiffs any cause of action or right to sue these defendants? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation? (iv) Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (v) Whether the suit is barred under the various provisions of the Specific Relief Act? (ii) Have plaintiffs any cause of action or right to sue these defendants? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation? (iv) Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (v) Whether the suit is barred under the various provisions of the Specific Relief Act? (vi) Whether the suit is bad on account for non-compliance to form No.47 & 48 of Appendix-A of the C.P.C.? (vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the alleged agreement dated 30.09.1987, and whether the said agreement is a false and fabricated document created by the plaintiffs for the purpose of cheating the defendants. (viii) Whether the Sale Deed No.4274 dated 04.10.2004 is liable to be cancelled as prayed for? (ix) To what relief or reliefs, if any, plaintiffs are entitled? 9. The Trial Court after examining the evidence has decided all the issues against the plaintiffs. 10. The Trial Court after discussing the evidence has returned the findings that the plaintiffs have neither pleaded regarding readiness and willingness nor it has been proved. Only oral evidence has been made that they have written several letters to the defendant no.1 but not a single letter has been produced. Thus, on the one hand there is no pleading for readiness and willingness and on the other hand, the witness has deposed that so many letters have been written but no letter has been placed. 11. So far as existence of agreement dated 30.09.1987 is concerned, the trial court has relied upon the evidence of defendant no.1, who has appeared and deposed that she has neither executed an agreement nor received money. Further she has asserted that the possession has not been given to the plaintiffs and these statements are wrong. 12. Plaintiffs in their cross examination has not even drawn the attention of the defendant no.1 regarding her signature on the alleged agreement. Thus, there is more or less acceptance on the part of the plaintiffs that the deed is forged and it was never signed by the defendant no.1. 13. Further, finding has been recorded that the agreement is dated 30.09.1987 in the year 1987 itself, cause of action has arose while the suit has been filed in the year 2006. So, there is inordinate delay, although period of limitation is three years. 13. Further, finding has been recorded that the agreement is dated 30.09.1987 in the year 1987 itself, cause of action has arose while the suit has been filed in the year 2006. So, there is inordinate delay, although period of limitation is three years. Reasonable period may be considered but not such inordinate delay can be condoned, especially, when the factum of agreement as well as readiness and willingness is doubted. 14. Accordingly, the trial court has decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and suit has been dismissed. 15. The Appellate Court has also discussed the evidence and affirmed the findings returned by the trial court and accordingly, the decree has been confirmed. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since they were in possession of the suit land, there was no requirement of pleading regarding readiness and willingness. 17. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted firstly for the reason that their possession itself has been disputed rather the finding has been recorded by both the courts below that plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. Secondly, even if, when they were in possession of the suit land, mere pleading of Section 53-A under which they are claiming protection, the requirement of readiness and willingness is mandatory. Plaintiffs have to plead and prove their readiness and willingness for performance on their part. 18. The appellants have failed on this point also and both the courts below have given finding on this issue that no steps have been taken by the plaintiffs, which suggests that they were never ready and willing to perform their part. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that no substantial question of law in the present second appeal. 20. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.