Letters Patent Appeal No.44 OF 1992 ***** Against the judgment dated 17.12.1991, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A. No.824 of 1976. ***** 1. Raj Kumari Devi, W/O Late Ramchandra Singh. 2. Kanhya Singh, S/O Late Ramchandra Singh. 3. Bablu Singh, Minor S/o Late Ramchandra Singh. 4. Chunchun, Minor S/o Late Ramchandra, under the guardianship of her mother appellant no.1. All residents of Village- Nauranga, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai. ..... Appellants. Versus 1. Mundrika Devi, W/o Ram Brit Singh, Village- Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 2. Ram Rati Devi, W/o Rajo Singh, Village Chak, P.S. Motihari, District- Begusarai. 3. Smt. Bimla Devi, wife of Ram Naresh Pd., Village Ramdiri Tola Nakati, P.S. & District Begusarai. 4. Shakuntala Devi, wife of Ram Balak Singh, village- Ramdiri Tola Nakati, P.S. & District- Begusarai. 5. Jagtarni Devi, D/o Late Ramchandra Singh, resident of village Nauranga, P.S. Begusarai, District- Begusarai. ...... Respondents. ***** For the Appellants: Mr. Sidheshwari Pd. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shiva Nandan Rai, Senior Advocate Mr. Krishna Kishore Singh Mr. Brajesh Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Devendra Pd. Sharma,& Mr. Kamla Pd. Rai, Advocates. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ***** S K Katriar & J.Saran, JJ. The appellants (substituted heirs of original plaintiff) have preferred this appeal under 2 Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and are aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.1991, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A. No.824 of 1976 (Mundrika Devi and another Vs. Raj Kumari Devi and others), whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants (respondent 1st set herein) has been allowed, the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1976, passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge- III, Begusarai, in Title Suit No.102 of 1972/ 24 of 1976 (Ramchander Singh Vs. Mundrika Devi and others), has been set aside, and the plaint has been rejected. The present appeal arises out of a judgment of reversal. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint. 2. The appellants have placed on record an affidavit stating therein that appellant no.1 (Raj Kumari Devi) died on 17.8.2006, leaving behind the following heirs and legal representatives who are already on record as appellant nos.2, 3, and respondent no.5: (i) Kanhaiya Singh (ii) Bablu Singh (iii) Jagtarni Devi In that view of the matter, as prayed, let the name of appellant no.1 be expunged, and be noted 3 that her heirs are already on record as appellant nos.2, 3, and respondent no.5. 3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, in brief, is that he is a descendant of one Darbari Singh, who had five sons, namely, Nand Kishore Singh, Yugal Kishore Singh, Awadh Kishore Singh, Gopal Singh, and Rup Narain Singh. Awadh Kishore Singh and Gopal Singh died issueless. Rup Narain Singh had only his wife, Hema Devi who died during the life time of Rup Narain Singh. Nand Kishore Singh had only one son Chandradip Singh and Yugal Kishore Singh had also one son, namely, Ram Pratap Singh. Ram Pratap Singh left behind two sons, namely, Bishwanath Singh and Ramchander Singh. However, Bishwanath Singh also expired in the year 1957, leaving behind his wife Ram Dai and daughter Bimla Devi. After the death of Rup Narain Singh, half share of his property went to Chandradip Singh, son of Nand Kishore Singh, and the other half went to Ram Pratap Singh, son of Yugal Kishore Singh. Out of the total share falling in the name of Ram Pratap Singh, half of it was that of the plaintiff (Ramchandra Singh), and other half belonged to Bimla Devi, daughter of Bishwanath Singh who was full brother of the plaintiff (Ramchandra Singh). 3.1) The plaintiff and Bishwanath Singh had residential house and the land in Mauza Navrangha 4 and Mirganj fully described in Schedule I of the plaint. After the death of Bishwanath Singh, the plaintiff (Ramchandra Singh) along with the widow of Bishwanath Singh, namely, Ram Dai had taken six registered Sudbharnas from one Ambika Singh jointly and were in its possession. After the death of Ram Dai, the joint possession of the plaintiff and daughter of Bishwanath Singh, namely, Bimla Devi, continued on the properties. These lands have been fully described in Schedule II of the plaint. 3.2) According to the plaintiff, after the death of his father, he was looked after by Ram Dai as well as Chandradip Singh, his uncle. It is stated that the plaintiff having lost his parents early in life, picked up bad association and started taking liquor in the company of one Ramprit Singh and his friends. 3.3) It is the case of the plaintiff that Ramprit Singh had given assurance of taking him to Calcutta and getting him partnership business and in that connection he was taken to Ratnpur, where Ramprit Singh along with Rajo Singh by deception took his thumb impression on stamp paper as well as on pie paper. The plaintiff further states that thereafter the said Ramprit Singh and Rajo Singh took him to Begusarai on several occasions and got executed four deeds covering the entire Schedule-I 5 lands in favour of their respective wives as well as two deeds of Intkalnama in respect of lands covered by six sudbharnas fully described in Schedule-II of the plaint. It would be pertinent to mention here that whereas Mundrika Devi (defendant no.1) is the wife of said Ramprit Singh, defendant no.2, namely, Ramrati Devi is the wife of other person, namely, Rajo Singh. 3.4) The plaintiff further contends that on 11th of October, 1965, Ramprit Singh and Rajo Singh, the husbands of defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively took him to village- Chak and where he was confined in a room but somehow he escaped therefrom and instituted a criminal case on 10.11.1965. 3.5) The plaintiff’s further case is that he learnt about the transfer deeds only after obtaining certified copies thereof and became aware of the fraud played on him. It is the case of the plaintiff that he never was in need of money as set out in the sale-deeds. He also claimed that no consideration money was paid to him and all the transfer deeds were fraudulent, without any consideration, and that he did not execute the said documents knowingly. It is further case of the plaintiff that Bimla Devi, daughter of his brother had instituted a partition suit giving rise to Partition Suit No.30 of 1965 claiming half shares in the suit lands, being 6 Schedules I and II, which suit was decreed in her favour. It was held that the transfer deeds were void and that Bimla Devi, the plaintiff of the said suit, was in possession over half of the suit lands. The plaintiff had filed a petition in the said suit to prove that the deeds were fraudulent but the suit being one of partition, the petition of the plaintiff was not considered in the said suit filed by Bimla Devi. The plaintiff claimed to be in joint possession over Schedules I and II lands. 3.6) According to the plaintiff, threat of dispossession at the hands of the defendants led to institution of the present suit for declaration of his title and possession over the lands mentioned in Schedules I and II of the plaint to the extent of 8 annas, and for the further declaration that the sale deeds dated 6.8.1965, and the sale deeds dated 27.9.1965, together with transfernamas dated 27.9.1965 and 11.10.1965 were fraudulent, collusive, without consideration, and did not confer any title on the defendants, nor the defendants were in possession of the properties in question and that the deeds were not binding on the plaintiff. Prayer for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was also prayed. 7 4. The defendants appeared, filed written statement and contested the suit. According to the defendants, the transfer deeds were executed by the plaintiff for legal necessities and for which consideration money was also paid to him. The defendants denied having played any fraud or deception on the plaintiff on the execution of the deeds in question. They also denied the allegation of the plaintiff that Ramprit Singh (husband of defendant no.1), and Rajo Singh (husband of defendant no.2), had got him into a drinking habit. The defendants further contended that no allurement or inducement had given to the plaintiff for going to Calcutta and for doing partnership business. The defendants claimed that they were in possession of half share of the plaintiff (Ramchandra Singh), in the suit land and on the basis of decree passed in Partition Suit No.30 of 1965, Bimla Devi was also in joint possession of Schedules I and II lands. It was the case of the defendants that Ramchandra Singh had no right over any portion of Schedules I and II lands after execution of the deeds. It was further case of the defendants that the contents of the deeds had been read over and explained to the plaintiff (Ramchandra Singh), whereafter he had put his left thumb impression and after understanding the contents thereof. The defendants had denied that 8 the L.T.I. of the plaintiff was obtained on blank sheet of papers. They have also denied that Ramchandra Singh, the plaintiff, was kept confined in a room at Chak. The plaintiff raises false issues. Prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 5. In substance it is a suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit lands to the extent of 50 per cent and for declaration that the title deeds are fraudulent, do not create any title, having been executed in favour of first party, are invalid, do not convey any right, title and interest by the plaintiffs. The learned trial court framed the following issues for adjudication: (1) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (2) Has the plaintiff any cause of action or right to sue? (3) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (4) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree with a declaration that, he had title and possession over his 8 annas share of Schedule 1 and 2 lands and the defendants had no title? (5) Is the plaintiff entitles to get a declaration that the 2 sale deeds dated 6.8.65 and the 2 sale deeds dated 27.9.65 and also the transfernamas dated 27.9.65 and 11.10.65 did not confer any title to the defendants nor they got possession over any portion of the suit land and that the threat of dispossession was an illegal action on their (defdts) part. (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to any other relief? 9 6. The learned trial court on contest held that the plaintiff has proved his title with respect to the suit land to the extent of half share and he was in joint possession with Bimla Devi. It was further held that the sale deeds dated 6.8.1965, and 27.9.1965, as well as the deeds dated 27.9.1965 and 11.10.1965, are fraudulent documents and, therefore, cannot convey right title and interest. The same were inoperative and, therefore, the defendants never came in possession of the suit lands. There was no necessity for Ramchandra Singh to sell the lands. The deeds had been executed under the evil influence of one Ram Prit Singh, and under the influence of liquor. No consideration money passed, and the defendants are in possession of the suit properties after the possession of Bimla Devi was declared in Partition Suit No.30 of 1965. The title deeds executed by Ramchandra Singh were declared to be illegal and inoperative, the declaration prayed for was granted, and the plaint was decreed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendant 1st set appealed by filing the aforesaid F.A. No.824 of 1976 (Mundrika Devi and another Vs. Raj Kumari Devi and others). On an exhaustive consideration of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge 10 allowed the appeal, and dismissed the plaint. It has been held that Ramchandra Singh may have been in habit of taking liquor, but the materials do not suggest that the executant had executed the deeds while he was under the influence of liquor, or under the evil influence of Ramprit Singh. In other words, Ramprit Singh had not exercised undue influence, and the plaintiff had executed the registered deeds entirely out of his free will, and in the absence of any undue influence of liquor. He has further held that the deeds had been executed for valuable consideration and the consideration money did pass on to the executant. In fact, the learned Single Judge has also observed that there is absolutely no pleading on behalf of the plaintiff regarding non- payment of consideration money, and is based on the sole testimony of P.W.65 (The plaintiff’s wife). There is lack of pleading as well as inadequate material to reach the conclusion that consideration money had not been made over to the executant. In other words, it has been held that, in the absence of necessary pleadings as also evidence in that regard, it is not possible to hold in the context of recitals in the deeds that no consideration money had been passed. It has further been observed that in view of the position that they have been engaged in litigation, it is not possible to hold that 11 Ramprit Singh and Rajo Singh had way-laid the plaintiff, as a result of which the deeds had been executed in favour of their wives. He has further held that in view of the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff, he has not been able to prove his case. He has further held that the present case is covered by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, period of limitation of three years was available to the plaintiff. In the result, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed with costs. 8. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the suit is not covered by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, but is instead covered by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this Court in exercise of its powers under Clasude-10 of the Letters Patent has to consider all issues of facts and laws. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2048 (Smt. Asha Devi Vs. Dukhi Sao and another) (ii) 2009 A.I.R. S.C.W. 668 (Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand Shah Vs. State of Bihar). 12 8.1) He also submits another question for consideration is the date on which the period of limitation shall commence. 8.2) He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the reasons assigned by the learned trial court, in a situation where the judgment of the learned trial court has been reversed by the learned Single Judge. He also submits that the findings arrived at in Partition Suit No.30 of 1965, where the plaintiff and defendant no.2, were parties operates as Res- Judicata. He has also pointed out a number of errors to be found in the impugned judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants (respondents herein) has supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the true scope of letters patent appeal has been discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in 1999 (2) Bihar Law Judgments 818 (Barhu Ram and others s. Butai Ram and others). He next submits that the issues are concluded by findings of facts, and no question of law arises. He, inter alia, submits that the learned Single Judge has made specific reference to the judgment of the trial court, and has step by step and assiduously met the reasonings assigned by the learned trial court while reversing the same. 13 10. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The scope of Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court was considered in Barhu Ram Vs. Butai Ram (supra), Paragraph 15 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “15. Counsel for the appellants submitted in a Letters Patent Appeal, it is open to this Court not only to consider questions of law, but also to go into questions of fact and in this appeal it is open to this court to set aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court. While it is true that the special jurisdiction of this Court under Letters Patent does not inhibit the Court from going into questions of fact as well as questions of law, it is equally well settled that findings of fact may be set aside by this Court only if there are good reasons to do so. The appellants must be able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact are either perverse or palpably unreasonable and therefore, unsustainable. If the trial Court and the appellate Court have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded findings which can be said to be reasonable, there will be no justification for setting aside such findings of fact. We have, therefore, noticed broadly the evidence on record with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court are either perverse, unreasonable or are based on no evidence or are vitiate for any other reason.” (Emphasis added) 14 We have, therefore, to consider the validity of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in view of the touch-stone indicated in the judgment. 11. It appears to us on a perusal of the impugned judgment that the issues are concluded by findings of facts and no question of law at all arises in this case. The learned Single Judge has throughout the length of his judgment kept in mind the findings recorded by the learned trial court and has step by step examined the validity of the same, and reached his own conclusions on a critical appraisal of the materials on record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in his expansive submissions has only advanced issues of facts which cannot be gone into within the scope of letters patent appeal. The plaintiff has not at all been able to make out a case that the findings of facts are perverse or palpably unreasonable and unsustainable. 12. In so far as the question of applicability of Article 59 of the Limitation Act is concerned, the same reads as follows: “A period of three years is prescribed for limitation for a suit covered by Article 59.” It appears to us on a perusal of the averments made in the plaint, and the evidence led by the parties, we are convinced that the plaint in 15 substance is for cancellation of registered deeds and obviously, therefore, period of three years has been provided from the date of knowledge of execution or registration of the deeds to the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed this issue on facts and has recorded a clear finding of fact as to the date on which the plaintiff had first of all come to know of the date of execution of registered deeds. We entirely agree with the same. 13. We do not find any merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed. The issues are concluded by findings of facts, and no question of law arises in the appeal. The suit is dismissed with costs. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 14th day of July, 2009 S.K.Pathak/ (A.F.R.)