HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) Description of the case Second Appeal No. 797 of 2001 Janeshwar Sharma. Vs. Mamchand and another. Approved for reporting. Date of Decision: 1.4.2008 Initial of Judge: ……………… ……………….. ……………………… HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SECOND APPEAL NO. 797 OF 2001 (Old No. 760/1998) Janeshwar Sharma, S/o Sri Devi Dutt, R/o Village Libberheri, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District- Hardwar. ……..Appellant/Plaintiff. Versus 1. Mamchand, S/o Sri Jaswant Singh Caste Jat, R/o Village Libberheri, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Hardwar. ……... Respondents. 1.4.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri A.K. Sharma, counsel for the appellant and Sri M.S. Tyagi, counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995 Mamchand Vs. Janeshwar and another arising out of judgment and decree dated 18.11.1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Roorkee in Original Suit No. 108 of 1992 Janeshwar Vs. Mamchand and another. 3. Present Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1) Whether the court below acted illegally in setting aside the findings of the trial Court without considering the material evidence on record and without giving congnizance and proper reasons? 2) Whether the sale deed dated 12.9.94 was not provided due to non-production of witnesses and ex parte opinion and the court below acted illegally otherwise? 3) Whether the claim of the defendants cannot be made without the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.12.1991 executed in favour of the appellant? 4) Whether the judgment and order passed by the court below is against the weight of evidence on record and is based on conjectures and surmises and misreading of the evidence?’’ 4. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff /appellant being Original Suit No. 108 of 1992 Janeshwar Sharma Vs. Mamchand and others praying to the following effect: ^^vr% okn izkFkhZ gS fd %& v%& fMdzh ckcr eUlq[kh cSukek cgd oknh cj f[kykQ izfroknhx.k lkfnj Qjek;h tkdj cSukek bdjkjh izfroknh uEcj 2 cgdj izfroknh uEcj 1 fnukafdr 27-6-91 bZ0 ftldh jftLV~h lc jftLVªkj :M+dh cgh uEcj 1 ftYn 2090@2094 ds i`”B la0 12@327 ls 330 esa uoEcj 4953 ij fnukad & 2&7&91 bZ0 dh dh xbZ cdnj tk;nkn en ¼c½ tSYk eUlq[k Qjek;k tkoa vkSj bldh lwpuk lc jftLVªkj :M+dh dks nh tk;sA c%& fMdzh okLrs fnyk ikus n[ky Åij tk;nkn tSy en ¼c½ cgd okn dk;e djus if’peh fnokj o cjkens ¼NrM+s½ dh o yxkus fdokM+ njokts esa oknh cjf[kykQ izfroknh lkfnj Qjek;h tk;sA Lk%& fMxzh okLrs fnyk ikus eqvkotk bLrseky c”kjg 200@& :Ik;s izfr ekg nkSjku eqdnek o vkbZUnk nkSjku eqdnek rk;he n[ky okdbZ cgd oknh cjf[kykQ izfroknh uEcj 1 lkfnj Qjek;h tk;s ftl ij dksVZQhl btjk; ds le; vnk fd;k tk;sxkA n%& [kpkZ okn oknh dk izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA c%& vU; lgk;rk ftldk oknh jk; vnkyr esa vf/kdkjh ik;k tk;s cgd oknh cj f[kYkkQ izfroknh lkfnj Qjek;k tk;sA** 5. The description of the property, which has been given in the foot of the memo of the plaint, is to the following effect: ^^fooj.k lEifRRk en ¼v½ ,d fdrk vgkrk edku nf{k.k eqgkuk okds dCtk fyCcjgsM+h ijxuk eaxykSj rglhy :M+dh ftyk gfj}kj] ftlds mRrj esa edku oknh iwjc esa edku oknh] if”pe esa edku ?kqe flag] nf{k.k esa jkLrk o edku izfroknh uECkj 1 fLFkr gSA fooj.k lEifRRk tk;nkn en ¼c½ ,d fdrk vgkrk crkehj [kke ftldh uki mRrj o nf{k.k dh vksj 12 QqV] 12 QqV iwjc o if’pe dh vkj 38 QqV 38 QqV ftlesa ,d dejk e; NrMk 12 QqV xq.kk 20 QqV dk dPpk nf{k.k eqgkuk cuk gS dqy {ks=Qy 456 oxZQqV gksrk gS ftlds mRRkj esa edku oknh] nf{k.k esa jkLrk o edku izfroknh uEcj 1 iwjc esa edku o IykV fooj.k lEifRRk tk;nkn en ¼l½ ,d fdrk edku [kke ftldh uke mRrj o nf{k.k dh vksj 12 QqV 12 iwjc o if’pe dh vksj 38 QqV ftlesa ,d dejk e; NrM+k 12 QqV xq.kk 20 QqV dk dPpk nf{k.k eqgkuk cuk gSA dqy {ks=Qy 456 oxZQqV gksrk gS ftlds mRRkj o edku oknh o nf{k.k esa jkLrk o edku izfroknhx.k o ftlds if”pe esa edku /kqeflag o iwjc esa lEifRr en ¼c½ mijksDRk gSA** 6. According to the plaint case, one Nihal was the owner of the property shown as “A” in the foot of the plaint. After the death of Mr. Nihal, his two sons namely; Chetan and Atma Ram became the owner of the ancestral property and both the brothers became the owners of the property “A” in the ratio of ½ and ½ . After the death of Sri Atma Ram so far as his property is concerned, his wife Smt. Asharfi, and four sons Laxmi Chand, Jai Chand (defendant no.2), Ghanshyam and Radhey Shyam became the owners. The eastern portion of the property ‘A’, which has been shown as ‘Ba’ was succeeded by Chetan and the western portion, which has been shown as “Sa’ was succeeded by the successors of Atma Ram namely Laxmi Chand, Jai Chand, Ghanshyam, Radhey Shyam and Asharfi. Sri Chetan sold the property ‘Ba’ in favour of the plaintiff on 19.12.1991 by way of registered document. The defendant no.1 got the property ‘A’ executed in his favour on 27.6.1991 from defendant no. 2 though he has no right to execute the sale deed in respect of property “Aa” and he was having right only to sell 1/5th share of the property and beyond that, he was not entitled to sell. Late on an amendment has been made in paragraph 10 (Aa) to the following effect: ^^10v%& ;g fd izfroknh u0a 1 us nkSjku okn fnukad 7&2&94 dks lEifRr en ^^c** ij vius vuqfpr dCts dk uktk;t Qk;nk mBkdj lEifRRk en ^^c** ds cjkens ¼NrM+s½ dh if’peh fnokj fudky nh gS ftlds ckjs esa oknh us rqjUr ,d nj[okLr mlh fnu Fkkuk/;{k eaxykSj ds ;gka izLrqr dh rFkk okn esa mlh fnu ‘kke dks lEifRRk en c ds njokts ds fdokM+ Hkh rkj fy;s dkuwu u izfroknh ua0 1 mijksDr fnokj cnLrwj lkcdk dk;e djds o njokts esa fdckM+ yxkdj mldk n[ky oknh dks nsus dk ftEesnkj gSA** 7. A written statement filed, where the plaint averments have been denied and it has been stated that the he has no concern with the property ‘A’ as he has no saleable rights. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: ^^1& D;k fookfnr nLrkost cSukek fnukafdr 27&6&91 okn i= esa dfFkr vk/kkj ij eulq/k gksus ;ksX; gS \ 2& D;k oknh fookfnr lEifRr ij n[ky ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 3& D;k oknh dks okn izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj gS \ 4& vuqrks”k ;fn dksbZ gS \ 5& D;k izfroknh la[;k 1 us nkSjku okn fookfnr lEifRr en ^^c** ds cjkens dks if’peh nhokj rksM+ nh o bl lEifRr ds fdokM+ mrkj fy;s \** 9. Plaintiff has filed paper No. 39 Ka sale deed executed by one Chetan in favour of the plaintiff. Towards the oral evidence, the plaintiff himself and one Sri Chetan have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. 10. Defendants have filed sale deed dated 12.9.54 paper No. 33 Ka, Copy of the suit No. 202/91 filed by the plaintiff against defendant no. 1 and copy of the sale deed Paper No. 43 Ka executed by one defendant no. 2 in favour of Mamchandra. Towards the oral evidence, Mam Chand, the defendant himself and Nalendra have been examined as D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively. 11. While deciding the issue no.1 and 3 as to whether the document in question sale deed dated 27.6.1997 is liable to be declared void as has been stated in the plaint and further as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit, the trial Court has recorded the finding that the sale deed dated 27.6.91 is liable to be declared void to the extent it relates to Property No. ‘Ba’ and after taking into consideration the entire evidence on the record, the trial court has declared that sale deed to be void to the extent of Property No. ‘Ba’. The trial Court has further recorded a finding that since Chetan had executed the sale deed of the property No. ‘Ba’ on 19.12.1991 in favour of the plaintiff including this property, Jai Chand had executed a sale deed of entire property i.e. A in favour of Mam Chand, therefore, the plaintiff has right to file the suit. Thus, the aforesaid issues have been decided accordingly. 12. While deciding the issue no. 2 as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession over the property in dispute, the trial Court has recorded the finding that Janeshwar Prasad Sharma is the owner of the property No. ‘Ba’ and the same has been admitted by the defendant Mam Chand. On the basis of sale deed dated 27.6.1991, the defendant is in possession of the entire property ‘A’. It shows that the property ‘Ba’ is of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to restrain the defendant no. 1 from interfering with the same. 13. While deciding the issue no. 5, the trial Court has recorded a finding that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant no. 1 has demolished the wall of the western Varandah and removed the door of property ‘Ba’. 14. While deciding the issue no.4, the trial Court has recorded a finding to the following effect: ^^oknh us }kjk vuqrks’k lEifRr en c esa izfroknh la[;k 1 ls n[ky fnyk;s tkus gsrq pkgk gSA mijksDRk foospuk ls Li’V gS fd oknh] izfroknh la[;k 1 ls mijksDr Hkwfe ij n[ky ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA tgk¡ rd vU; vuqrks”k ekotk bLrseky nks lkS :Ik;k izfr ekg nkSjku okn o vkbZUnk n[ky okdbZ rd fnyk;s tkus dk iz”u gS oknh ;g fl) djus es vlQYk jgk gS vr% ;g vuqrks’k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA rn~uqlkj vkns”k ikfjr fd;s tkrs gSA** 15. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995 Mamchand Vs. Janeshwar and another. The appellate Court has recorded a finding to the following effect: ^^14& izfroknh lk{kh Mh0MCyw0 2 ckysUnz cSukek 27&6&91 43 d ds gkf”;s dk xokg gSA mlus vius c;kuksa esa cSukek 43 d ij viuh xokgksa dk fl) fd;k gSA Mh0MCyw0 3 t;pUnz us vius c;kuksa esa cSukek 43d izfroknh la0 1 ek;pUnz ds i{k esa fu”ikfnr fd;k tkuk vkSj fofdzr lEifRr ij ekepUn ds i{k esa fu”ikfnr fd;k tkuk vkSj fofdzr lEifRRk ij ekepUnz dk dCtk fn;k tkuk fl) fd;k gSA 15& mijksDRk foospuk ls ;g fl) gS fd lEifRr en v esa osru vius fgLls dk cSukek izfroknh la0 2 t;pUn ds firk vkRekjke ds i{k esa 18&9&54 dks fu’ikfnr djds xzke fyCcjgsM+h ls pyk x;k FkkA izfroknh i{k ds lk{; esa ;g vk;k gS fd vkRekjke dh e`R;q ds Ik”pkr lEifRr en v dh ckcr vkRekjke ds okfjlku ds e/; ikfjokfjd caVokjk gks x;k FkkA vkSj bl ikfjokfjd caVokjsa esa lEifRr en v izfroknh la0 2 t;pUn ds fgLls esa vk;h FkhA bl izdkj tpuN izfroknh la0 2 dks lEifRr en v dk cSukek izfroknh la0 1 ekepUnz ds i{k esa fu’ikfnr djus dk vf/kdkj Fkk vkSj mlus oS/k :Ik ls bldk cSukek 27&6&91 dks izfroknh la0 1 ds i{k esa fd;k vkSj fofdzr lEifRr ij izfroknh la0 1 dk dCtk djk;kA fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k ;g fu’d’kZ fd t;pUn dks leifRr en c dk cSukek izfroknh la0 1 ds i{k esa fu”ikfnr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugh Fkk] =qfViw.kZ gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g Hkh fl) gS fd ;|fi osru us 18&9&54 dks lEifRr en v ds vius fgLls dk cSukek vkRekjke ds i{k esa fu’ikfnr dj fn;k Fkk ijUrq blds foijhr fu”d”kZ nsdj Hkh fo}ku voj U;k;jky; us =qfV dh gSA** 16. By recording the aforesaid finding, the appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant no. 2 has a right to sell the property ‘Aa’ in favour of the plaintiff and execute the sale deed on 27.6.1991 if favour of the defendant no. 1. So far as the property in favour of Chetan is concerned, the said document was executed in favour of the plaintiff. 17. I have also gone through the evidence on the record as well as judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and I come to the conclusion that the appellate Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree and there is no infirmity with the same. 18. In H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa 2006 AIR SCW 715, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “Under Section 100 of the Code (as amended in 1976) the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial questions of law. Interference with findings of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re- appreciation of evidence.” 19. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, I do not find any substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal and the Second Appeal is concluded by the finding of fact and deserves to be dismissed. 20. Consequently, Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 1.4.2008 Rathour