Ramlal vs Ranjeet Singh And Others

Sharad Sharma, J

This is a plaintiff's concurrent Second Appeal, wherein, he has challenged the judgment and decree passed on 27.07.2018 by the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2016 'Ramlal vs. Ranjeet Singh & Others' as well as judgment and decree dated 27.09.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Pauri Garhwal in Original Suit No. 03 of 2011 'Ramlal vs. Ranjeet Singh and Others', whereby the Suit for declaration instituted by the plaintiff (appellant herein) had been dismissed by both the Courts below recording a concurrent finding of facts.

In short, the case of the plaintiff/appellant before the Court below in a Suit for declaration it involved a prior chequered history, which is essentially required to be dealt with before venturing into the controversy as involved in the present Second Appeal.

Record shows that the plaintiff (appellant herein) had earlier instituted a Suit being Suit No. 26 of 2009 'Ramlal vs. Anwar Ahmed & Others', before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)., Srinagar Garhwal. The said Suit was instituted for a decree of injunction, wherein, the appellant to the present Second Appeal apparently has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, with the defendant no. 1 of the present Suit and had also relied upon a written agreement of tenancy dated 15.09.2007, by virtue of which tenancy was said to have been regulated, and he has prayed for a decree to the effect that he may not be evicted except with due process of law. In short in the earlier set of proceedings the facts, which are reflected therein, are as under:

"1. It is the appellant as plaintiff, who admitted the relationship of being landlord and tenant between him and defendant no. 1.

He admits the relationship of landlord and tenant, the terms of which were based on a rent agreement dated 15.09.2007.

The appellant himself has sought a relief that he may not be evicted by defendant no. 1, except with due process of law.

The pleading in the earlier Suit raised by appellant would amount to be admission of certain settled and apparent facts."

This Suit was admittedly dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.10.2009. This date 13.10.2009 of dismissal of Suit No. 26/2009 has got a very relevant role to play for the present controversy. The reason being that the plaintiff (appellant herein to Second Appeal) has come up with the case in the present Suit that he was made aware of so called adoption deed / Will allegedly executed by Pusu Mochi in his favour on 21.10.1952. The information of its execution was claimed to be parted to him in the year 2009 by Late Smt. Rikhuli Devi. It creates a doubt as regards to the dismissal of Suit No. 26/2009 for want of prosecution, followed subsequent to the so called information of the adoption deed dated 21.10.1952, said to have been parted with the plaintiff (appellant herein) only on 2009. It was thereafter that based on the aforesaid adoption deed the plaintiff (appellant herein) has instituted the present Suit being Suit No. 03 of 2011 'Ramlal vs. Ranjeet Singh and Others' seeking declaration of his rights over the property in question based on the said adoption deed dated 21.10.1952, the knowledge of which is claimed by him is to be w.e.f. 2009, there is no reason why the Suit for declaration being Suit No. 3 of 2011 was instituted only in 2011, when he was conscious of his earlier Suit for permanent injunction filed in 2009.

The Suit was contested and the defendants and they denied propriety of the adoption deed dated 21.10.1952 and specifically contended that the adoption deed is nothing but a fraudulent document, which has been manufactured only for the purposes of filing of subsequent Suit for declaration, i.e. the present Suit No. 03 of 2011 'Ramalal vs. Ranjeet Singh and Others', so that he may qualify his status of being admittedly a tenant, to be an owner of property, by taking a somersaulted stand.

The defendant/respondent further submitted before the Court below that no credence can be placed to the said document, which is the foundation for the present Suit for declaration, because the same has been shown to have been executed on five stamp papers of valuation of `1/- each, and there was a case pleaded by defendant/respondent before the Court below that the stamp paper on which the said deed is said to have been executed, as a matter of fact, was a stamp, which was not prevalent in the year 1952, when so called adoption deed was executed for the reason that the emblem of Ashoka, which appeared in the stamp paper showing "Satyamev Jayate' at the bottom of the emblem was not there in the stamps in use in the year 1952.

The case of the defendant/respondent was that in the year 1952 when the said adoption deed is said to have been executed on 21. 10.1952, in that year "Satyamev Jayate", was not prevalent in the stamp in use in the emblem of Ashoka, as it was then published by the Security Printing Press, Hyderabad. To fortify the aforesaid fact, the defendant no. 1, has moved an application under the Right to Information Act, before the Security Printing Press, Hyderabad, and the said information thus provided to defendant was placed on record by way of Paper No. 100ga/6, wherein, while answering question no. 3, it has been informed by Security Printing Press, Hyderabad, that the said emblem showing "Satyamev Jayate" at the bottom of the emblem of Ashoka became prevalent for the first time in year 1987, this itself creates doubt about the validity of the document based on which plaintiff (appellant herein), had sought declaration of title over the property in question.

The learned Trial Court also considered the fact that the said adoption deed dated 21.10.1952, was otherwise not proved in accordance of law of evidence as contemplated under Section 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is quoted hereunder, because none of the attesting witnesses were ever produced or nor any other such reliable witness were produced, who could have proved the signature of the executor of the deed to show that it was validly executed:

"If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.

[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purpots to have been executed is specifically denied."

In the proceeding before the Court below an issue also came for consideration, which was formulated by way of issue no. 4, to the effect as to whether in view of dismissal of earlier Suit No. 26 of 2009 of the plaintiff for want of prosecution on 13.10.2010 whether the subsequent belated fact, which was revealed during the pendency of first Suit would bar the proceedings of the present Suit as per provisions contained under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC:

"vkns"k 2 fu;e 2 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk esa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd&

i. Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff in entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.

ii. Relinquishment of part of claim-Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

iii. Omission to sue for one of several reliefs-A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sure all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted."

In the plaint the appellant has admitted the fact that the earlier Suit No. 26 of 2009, which was filed by appellant, it was filed after the defendant no. 1 had sold the property to defendant no. 2. On

06.2009 by a registered sale deed Courts held that appellant in the subsequent Suit filed in 2011, also pleaded the fact about sale made by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 on 10.06.2009, hence, the relief of declaration based on adoption deed should have been sought for in the earlier Suit, or atleast in the Suit against defendant no. 2. Hence in these circumstances where the plaintiff/appellant of the present Second Appeal who when claims declaration based on adoption, he should have simultaneously sought a relief of cancellation of registered sale deed of defendant no. 2. This relief as held by both the Courts was neither sought in the earlier Suit nor in the present Suit, hence, this Court is also of considered view that subsequent Suit from which this Second Appeal arises was barred by provisions contained under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C.

Even the appellant has been taking contradictory stand at different stages of the proceedings viz.-

(i) He claimed to be tenant based on agreement of tenancy from 1986.

(ii) Later started claiming his rights based on an agreement for sale said to have been executed by defendant no. 1 in his favour on 15.09.2007:

"iz"uxr Hkou dk ,d fyf[kr bdjkjukek fn0 15-09-2007 dks izfroknh la0 1 }kjk fd;k x;k fd vxj og iz"uxr Hkou dks foØ; djsxk rks oknh dks gh djsxk rFkk mDr bdjkjukek orZeku le; esa Hkh izfroknh la0 1 ds gh ikl ekStwn gSA".

(iii) Lastly started claiming right and title based on the so called adoption deed dated 21.10.1952.

There has been a contradictory claim raised by the appellant, which was neither proved nor established by him before both the Courts below.

This finding pertains to the propriety of the execution of the adoption deed in favour of appellant, which was allegedly said to have been conferring the right on the plaintiff/appellant was concurrently upheld by the First Appellate Court as to a document which was not a valid document, nor its execution as per law was established and the Appeal too stood dismissed.

In view of the stand taken by the plaintiff (appellant herein) in a prior Suit No. 26 of 2009, wherein he admitted the relationship of being a tenant, and in view of the fact that the adoption deed dated 21.10.1952 was not proved concurrently before both the Courts below, this Court after hearing learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Neeraj Garg at length does not find that any of the substantial question of law as pleaded in the Memorandum of Appeal arises for being consideration before this Court.

Consequently, the Appeal is concluded by concurrent finding of facts, the same is dismissed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.