Gagan Saluja And Ors vs Annapurna Devi And Ors

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Munsif-I,

Ranchi in Title Suit No. 197/2006 and Title Suit No. 198/2006, whereby the said court allowed the application filed by the defendant no. 3/respondent

no. 2 under Order XVI Rule 5 read with Section 30 C.P.C. to call for the original thumb impression register from the office of the District Sub-

Registrar, Ranchi in connection with the sale deeds dated 31.08.1999 purported to have been executed by Somra Ghashi (defendant no. 2) in the said

title suits.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the contents of the writ petition.

An application was filed on behalf of the defendant no. 3 of the said suits under Order XVI Rule 5 read with Section 30 C.P.C. praying inter alia to

call for the original thumb impression register from the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi in connection with the sale deeds dated 31.08.1999

purported to have been executed by Somra Ghasi. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 30.04.2019 allowed the said application. The

petitioners being the plaintiffs in the said suits, aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi has thus filed the

present writ petition.

The aforesaid title suits have been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation or recovery of possession

of the land in question. Both the suits are based on the sale deeds purported to have been executed by Somra Ghashi (defendant no. 2). The

defendants after their appearance in the said suits filed written statements asserting that the suit property was an ancestral one and as such, the

defendant nos. 3 to 5 have also their share over the land as Somra Ghashi (defendant no. 2) was not the absolute owner of the same, rather he was

entitled for only 1/4th share in the property. Moreover, the defendant no. 2 in his written statement has denied his LTI on the said sale deeds. It is the

admitted case of the parties that the plaintiffs did not produce the original sale deeds in the said suits. Under the said factual context, the learned court

below while considering the application filed on behalf of the defendant no. 3 under Order XVI Rule 5 read with Section 30 C.P.C. has held that the

entire case of the plaintiffs is based on the genuineness of the sale deeds dated 31.08.1999 and one of the contentions raised by the defendants is that

the sale deed dated 31.08.1999 was not executed by Somra Ghashi (defendant no. 2) and thus the said application calling for the original thumb

impression register from the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi has been allowed. I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2019

passed by the learned court below. Since the bone of contention in both the suits is with respect to the execution of the sale deeds dated 31.08.1999

and the defendant no. 2 in his written statement has denied to have executed the said sale deeds, calling for the original thumb impression register,

appears to be an important step to adjudicate the said dispute.

Further contention of the petitioners is that earlier also, a similar application under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. was preferred by the defendant no. 3,

which was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2018 and, therefore, the present application preferred by the defendant no. 3 was barred by principles of

res-judicata. The aforesaid contention of the petitioners appears to be not correct in terms with the observation made in the impugned order dated

30.04.2019 passed by the learned court below that earlier application preferred by the defendant no. 3 was in relation to producing the original sale

deeds dated 31.08.1999 on which the plaintiffs have based their claim in the suit. However, so far as the present application preferred by the

defendant no. 3 is concerned, the same is in relation to calling for the original thumb impression register from the office of the District Sub-Registrar,

Ranchi in which Somra Ghashi alleged to give his LTI at the time of registration of sale deeds.

Thus, in my view also, the present application filed by the defendant no. 3/respondent no. 2 under Order XVI Rule 5 read with Section 30 C.P.C. is

not barred by principles of res-judicata. Hence, I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi in

Title Suit No. 197/2006 and Title Suit No. 198/2006.

The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.