Ratiram Bagla and Others vs Chemadhar Jatav and Others

Rohit Arya, J.—This appeal by the plaintiffs'' under section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30/07/2014 passed in civil appeal No. 15A/2013 by I Additional District Judge, Datia District Datia confirming the judgment and decree dated 12/08/2013 passed in civil suit No. 30A/2012 by II Civil Judge, Class II, Datia, District Datia. Plaintiffs'' suit for declaration, ownership of the suit property and recognition of agreement dated 07/09/1992 as sale deed as well as permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Facts as pleaded in the plaint and relevant for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the suit land; agricultural land described in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment by the first appellate Court was of the ownership of the defendants'' and the same was given for cultivation and grazing cattle on a proposal for sale by the defendants'' on 07/09/1992 to the effect that for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/, the suit land shall be transferred in favour of the plaintiffs'' and three years'' prior to the aforesaid date, the possession of the suit land was delivered. Despite several reminders to defendants'', the sale deed was not executed. Even after serving legal notice on 28/12/2011, no action was taken by the defendants'' in the matter of registration of the sale deed. Having come to know the attempts of the defendants'' to transfer the suit land in favour of third person secretly, the instant suit was filed.

Defendants'' No. 1 to 3 have filed joint written statement and denied plaint allegations. It was averred that the suit land was given on patta by State Government in Sasmvat 2020 (year 1963) to their ancestor/original owner Sure s/o Asha Jatav and after his death, the same devolved upon the defendants''. Hence, in all these years, the ancestors and thereafter the defendants are cultivating and harvesting the crops over the suit land. The suit land is mutated in the names of Chemadhar, Manorama, Sanju Kailash and Rampyari, the heirs in the family. It is denied that the alleged agreement was executed by the defendants'' for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/. Instead, it is averred that in the year 1992, TANKA in writing was reduced between the defendants'' No. 2 and 3 on payment of Rs. 3,000/. It is alleged that the aforesaid agreement is a forged agreement. It is denied that plaintiffs'' are in possession over the suit land. It is denied that the plaintiffs'' are cultivating the suit land since 1993 as alleged. With the aforesaid pleadings, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

Defendants'' No. 5 and 6 have also filed a joint written statement and denied plaint allegations.

On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence and on comprehensive analysis of evidence has dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate Court has reconsidered the entire evidence and found that the plaintiff has failed to prove the factum of execution of alleged agreement dated 07/09/1992 as the thumb impression allegedly by the defendant on the agreement was not proved as required under section 67 of the Evidence Act. In the oral evidence, the plaintiff, Ratiram Bagla and plaintiff''s witness, Vrishbhan have claimed that the agreement was notarized but neither the notary nor the scribe of the agreement, Munnalal Sen were examined. The witness, Vrishbhan has no knowledge about the subject matter of the agreement and the details of land mentioned therein and also as regards consideration allegedly paid by plaintiff, Ratiram Bagla. That apart, the evidence so led by the plaintiff and his witness had been found to be contradictory and inconsistent as well discussed from paragraphs 12 to 15 of the impugned judgment. Under such circumstances, the alleged agreement dated 07/09/1992 was held to be totally misconceived and unsustainable. That apart, the agreement was claimed to be dated 07/09/1992 but no attempt was made by the plaintiff to seek execution of the sale deed in compliance thereof within three years and has filed the suit for declaration and injunction that the aforesaid agreement be treated as sale deed. That apart, the agreement is said to be of 07/09/1992 and the cause of action had arisen on 28/12/2010 and the suit was filed in the year 2011 which is beyond the prescribed period of three years for filing the suit. Therefore, while addressing on issue No. 3 found that the suit is barred by time and the justification given did not find favour with the Courts below. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate Court has affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs''.

Having gone through the concurrent impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below and the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the alleged agreement dated 07/09/1992. The suit was filed in the year 2011. The claim of sale vide alleged agreement dated 07/09/1972 was rightly rejected upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The Courts below have rightly found that there was no justification for having waited more than 19 years. Hence, no interference is warranted. Besides, such an agreement, even otherwise could not be treated to be a sale deed as claimed by the plaintiffs'' because in terms of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act any transaction of an immovable property for the value of Rs. 100/ or above, it is mandatory to register such document, otherwise the instrument loses its significance. Hence, the suit was rightly dismissed as also on the ground of limitation. More over, the judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellants'' reported in Madan Mohan Vs. Gauri Shankar and Another, , there is no dispute as regards the law laid down therein by this Court, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the same is distinguishable and not helpful to the plaintiffs''/appellants''. The findings so recorded by the Courts below are pure findings of fact based on critical evaluation of the entire evidence on record. As such, both the Courts below are fully justified in dismissing the suit of plaintiffs''. The findings are absolutely impeccable in nature. The entire gamut of matter is in realm of facts. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under section 100 CPC.

Appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.