IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.292 of 2009 1.Most.Pyari Kuer ,Wife of Late Rambachan Mallah. 2.Santosh Kumar Mallah, Son of Late Ram Bachan Mallah. Both are resident of Village- Masahi, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur(Bhabhua). --------------------------Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants. Versus 1.Sita Devi , Wife of Raghunath Giri. 2. Raghunath Giri, Son of .. Both are resident of Village- Kudra, P.S.- Kudra, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) at present Ward No.1 P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua)- ----------------Defendant-Respondent-Respondents. ----------- 9. 16.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Arbind Nath Pandey, appearing on behalf of the appellants. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.V, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Appeal No. 02/05/03/08 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2004 passed by Munsif, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 175 of 1993. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 16.07.1988 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants is 2 forged and fraudulent document and is fit to be cancelled. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that there was the negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendants for execution of a Rehan deed with regard to the suit land described in Schedule A of the plaint for a sum of Rs. 8,500/- and in fact on 16.07.1988 the plaintiff came to the registration office for the purpose of the execution of the mortgage deed as agreed in favour of the defendants. However the defendants falsely and fraudulently got executed a sale deed in place of a mortgage deed from the plaintiff on giving the impression upon the plaintiff that the mortgage deed was being executed. The plaintiff all through carried the impression that the mortgage deed had been executed but when he went to the defendants for payment of the mortgage money then he, for the first time, got knowledge that the sale deed had been executed and no Rehan deed had been executed. Thereafter the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.07.1988 and executed a cancellation deed with regard to the same. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is that no sale deed dated 16.07.1988 had been executed in favour of the defendant no.1 and the sale deed, in question is also 3 bad for want of statutory permission from the consolidation authority. And as such the suit was filed with aforementioned reliefs. The defendants by filing written statement have contested the claim of the plaintiff and have asserted that in fact the plaintiff was in need of money as he had already taken loans from other persons by mortgaging the suit land and as such there was negotiation for sale of the land for which the consideration money was agreed to be Rs. 8,500/-. The further case of the defendants is that the plaintiff had put the signature on the sale deed after fully understanding the contents of the same which was read over and explained to him by the scribe and thereafter he also accepted the execution of the sale deed before the registering authority. On these premises the defendants have prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The trial court framed specific issue with regard to the validity of the sale deed dated 16.07.1988 and after considering the evidence and submissions of the parties it has come to the specific finding that the plaintiff had in fact executed the sale deed dated 16.07.1988 in favour of the defendants and further that the plaintiff had failed to 4 establish his case that the sale deed had been obtained by him on the pretext of the execution of the mortgage deed. After this finding the trial court has also held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong by executing the sale deed without taking permission from the consolidation authorities as required and thus the trial court repelled the challenge by the plaintiff to the document for want of permission from the consolidation authorities. The appellate court reconsidered the evidence and pleadings of the parties in detail and has also come to the finding that the plaintiff had in fact executed the sale deed on 16.07.1988 in favour of the defendants willingly and after fully understanding the contents of the sale deed. Taking notice of the deposition of the witnesses appearing in the suit, it has also been found that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case of fraud as made out in the plaint. After this finding, the appellate court further concurred with the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong in not taking the statutory permission from the consolidation authorities before executing the sale deed and thereafter assail the document 5 on that basis. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in this second appeal has submitted that in fact the absence of the statutory permission from the consolidation authorities before the execution of the deed in question itself establishes that the intention of the plaintiff was to execute the mortgage deed and not a sale deed. The learned counsel has emphasized that in case of a mortgage deed no permission is required under the Consolidation Act and as such since agreement was for the execution of the mortgage deed the statutory permission had not been taken. It has also been submitted that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff before recording findings against him. After perusal of the impugned judgments it appears that both the courts below have after meticulous examination of evidence of the parties on record have come to the concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff had knowingly and willingly executed the sale deed dated 16.07.1988 in favour of the defendants. After recording this finding both the courts below have rightly repelled the 6 challenge of the plaintiff to the sale deed in question on the ground of want of statutory permission from the consolidation authorities on the well established principle that no person can be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. Nothing could be established that the finding of fact with respect to the execution of the sale deed is vitiated and as such, the submission of the learned counsel has no force. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)