Patna High Court
Sullu SainversusRamchandra Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs.
Summary
The plaintiffs filed a title suit seeking declaration of ownership, possession, permanent injunction and costs over a 5‑decimal plot, alleging purchase through a registered sale deed dated 28‑April‑2003 from Asgar Sai, who had earlier acquired the land via a 1957 sale deed from Buddhan Dom. The defendants argued that the 2003 deed was collusive and asserted an earlier unregistered sale deed of 19‑April‑1933 in favour of their ancestor Karam Sai, claiming continuous possession since 1933. The trial court found that the defendants raised no claim before June 2007, accepted the plaintiffs' chain of title, and decreed in their favour, ordering the defendants to vacate. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower courts' findings, noting that the defendants' title claim was untenable and that no substantial question of law arose. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the registered sale deed of 28‑April‑2003 is valid and binding on the defendants
- Whether the defendants have any title or interest in the suit land based on the alleged 1933 unregistered sale deed
- Whether the defendants' claim of prior ownership was raised in time and can be entertained
- Whether the trial court's decree can be interfered with on substantive grounds
- Whether any substantial question of law exists warranting interference by the appellate court
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLI Rule 11
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. Section 144
Subjects
- title suit
- declaration of title
- possession
- sale deed
- chain of title
- permanent injunction
- Civil Procedure Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.43 of 2022
======================================================
1. Sullu Sain @ Sullu Sah @ Sullu Sai, son of late Usuf Sain @ Fullu Sain @
Usuf Sai @ Fullu Sai, resident of Village - Madanpur, P.O. and P.S. -
Madanpur and District- Aurangabad.
2. Firoj Sain @ Firoj Sah @ Firoj Sai, son of Usuf Sain @ Fullu Sain @ Usuf
Sai @ Fullu Sai, resident of Village - Madanpur, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur
and District- Aurangabad.
3. Naseem Sah @ Naseem Sain, son of Usuf Sain @ Fullu Sain @ Usuf Sai @
Fullu Sai, resident of Village - Madanpur, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur and
District- Aurangabad.
4. Emteyaz Saha @ Butta Sian @ Imteyaj Sai @ Butta Sah, son of late Usuf
Sain @ Fullu Sain @ Usuf Sai @ Fullu Sai, resident of Village - Madanpur,
P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur and District- Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Ramchandra Singh, son of late Shivpujan Singh, resident of Village –
Madanpur, Tola-Sheonath Bigha, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur, District-
Aurangabad.
2. Hirdyanand Singh @ Hirdyachand, son of late Dhan Bihari Singh, resident
of Village - Madanpur, Tola-Sheonath Bigha, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur,
District- Aurangabad..
3. Janardan Singh, son of late Dhan Bihari Singh, resident of Village -
Madanpur, Tola-Sheonath Bigha, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur, District-
Aurangabad.
4. Sahendra Singh, son of late Dhan Bihari Singh, resident of Village -
Madanpur, Tola-Sheonath Bigha, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur, District-
Aurangabad.
5. Jitendra Singh, Son of late Dhan Bihari Singh, Resident of Village -
Madanpur, Tola-Sheonath Bigha, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur, District-
Aurangabad.
6. Pintu Kumar, son of late Dhan Bihari Singh Under Guardianship of his
eldest brother Hirdyanand Singh, resident of Village - Madanpur, Tola-
Sheonath Bigha, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur, District- Aurangabad.
7. Smt. Basanti Devi, wife of Shyam Narayan Yadav, resident of Village –
Dashwat Khap, P.O. and P.S. - Madanpur, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Mr .Vyas Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
Patna High Court SA No.43 of 2022(8) dt.08-01-2026
2/7
ORAL ORDER
8 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and decree of affirmance dated 21.12.2021 passed by
the Additional District Judge-IX, Aurangabad, in Title Appeal
No. 04 of 2019/ 47 of 2019 whereby judgment and decree dated
20.12.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge- 1st, Aurangabad, in
Title Suit No. 128 of 2008 has been upheld.
3. The defendants are the appellants and the plaintiffs
are the respondents in the present appeal.
4. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.128 of 2008 for
declaration of title and recovery of possession as also for
permanent injunction and cost of the suit.
5. The case of the plaintiffs is that Ramchandra Singh,
Smt. Basanti Devi and Dhanbihari Singh purchased the land
with an existing house jointly through registered sale deed dated
28.04.2003 for valuable consideration of Rs.1,95,000/- from
Asgar Sai. The details of the land is mentioned in Schedule-A of
the plaint. The said Asgar Sai had purchased the said land with
constructed house through Sada sale deed dated 10.10.1957 for
valuable consideration of Rs. 99 and 12 anna from Buddhan
Dom, who was recorded tenant in the Cadestral Survey. The suit
property comprised of three rooms with varandah surrounded
Patna High Court SA No.43 of 2022(8) dt.08-01-2026
3/7
by the boundary wall measuring an area of 5 decimal and the
defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit
property in the month of September 2007 and constructed a
temporary shade over the suit land. Hence, the aforesaid suit
was filed by the plaintiffs.
6. The defendants/appellants appeared and filed their
written statement and denied the claim and possession of the
plaintiffs and vehemently pleaded that sale deed dated
28.04.2003 is collusive, fraudulent, inoperative and is not
binding upon the defendants/appellants. It is further pleaded that
the suit land bearing Khata No. 176 Plot No. 1093/1687, area 5
decimals is recorded in C.S. Khatiyan as gairmajarua malik in
possession of Buddhan Dom. The said Buddhan Dom orally
sold the suit land to Karam Sai on 19.04.1933 for valuable
consideration of Rs. 72/- only through unregistered sale deed.
Karam Sai came in possession over the suit land after execution
of the unregistered sale deed dated 19.04.1933. The
defendants/appellants are the descendants of Late Karam Sai,
who are coming in peaceful possession from the time of their
father since the year 1933 and they also paid Chowkidari rent of
the suit property. The defendants never dispossessed the
plaintiffs and the story of dispossession is false and fictitious
Patna High Court SA No.43 of 2022(8) dt.08-01-2026
4/7
and the defendants are residing over the suit land from the
lifetime of their father.
7. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the
learned Trial Court framed issues and after considering the
pleadings and materials on record, decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs/respondents. The learned Trial Court held that the
disputed property was admittedly recorded as gairmajarua
malik in possession of Buddhan Dom. The defendants claimed
that the suit land was purchased through unregistered sale deed
in favour of Karam Sai on 19.04.1933. On the contrary, Sullu
Sai (defendant no. 1), in his cross-examination, during the trial
accepted that the defendants claim their right, title over the Plot
No. 1055/1683 in the proceeding under Section 144 which was
initiated against the plaintiffs and defendants vide order dated
11.06.2007 passed in Case No. 658 of 2007 (Ext.-4). Therefore,
it is apparent from the record that no claim was raised by the
defendants for the suit land till 2007. The land in dispute was
purchased by the plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated
28.04.2003 which was never challenged by the defendants in
any suit and accordingly, the learned Trial Court after
considering the materials on record, held that the plaintiffs have
successfully proved their case. The right, title and interest has
Patna High Court SA No.43 of 2022(8) dt.08-01-2026
5/7
been proved on the basis of the documents and evidence
adduced by the plaintiffs and further held that from the record it
appears that the defendants have raised no claim about the suit
land till June, 2007 and, accordingly, the defendants were
directed to vacate the suit land within three months.
8. Being aggrieved, the defendants/appellants had
filed Title Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court which was dismissed by the Appellate Court affirming the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The First Appellate
Court has held that source of title of the plaintiffs/respondents is
Sada sale deed executed by recorded tenant (Ext. 1A). The
registered sale deed executed (Ext. 1) in favour of Ramchandra
Singh, Dhanbihari Singh and Basanti Devi is a valid, legal and
reliable document. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and
disprove the documents exhibited by the plaintiffs/respondents.
It is apparent from the record that just after dispossession, the
plaintiffs/respondents have rightly filed a case under Section
144 of Cr.P.C. in which both the parties appeared and had
contested the matter, wherein, the defendants (especially
defendant no. 1) have stated in their claim that the defendants
have no any concern with Khata No. 176, Plot No. 1093/1687,
area 5 decimals which is the suit land. This fact has been
Patna High Court SA No.43 of 2022(8) dt.08-01-2026
6/7
admitted by defendant no. 1 in his cross-examination during the
trial and further held that respondents (plaintiffs) have
successfully proved the chain of the title i.e. the recorded tenant
had rightly executed a sale deed dated 10.10.1957 (Ext. 1A) and
the vendor of the plaintiffs/respondents acquired valid right to
transfer the suit property and the vendor has rightly executed the
registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
have proved story of dispossession in the month of September,
2007 and consequently, the learned First Appellate Court has not
interfered in the judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the
appeal was dismissed.
9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf
of the appellants and upon perusal of the materials on record
including the judgments of the learned courts below, it appears
that the learned courts below after considering the pleadings of
the parties and evidence adduced by them came to a definite
conclusion that defendant no. 1 has admitted in his cross-
examination that the defendants/appellants have no any concern
with Khata No. 176, Plot No. 1093/1687, Area 5 decimals,
which is the suit land. The learned courts below categorically
held that till June, 2007, the defendants had raised no claim
about the suit land. The plaintiffs have proved their chain of title
Patna High Court SA No.43 of 2022(8) dt.08-01-2026
7/7
from the recorded tenant, who had executed Sada sale deed in
favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs, who in turn executed the
registered sale deed on 28.04.2003 in favour of the plaintiffs,
which has not been challenged by the defendants in any suit and
no counter claim was filed by the defendants in the aforesaid
suit.
10. Both the courts below have concurrently held that
the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not
want to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts
below. No question of law much less substantial questions of
law is involved in this appeal.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the stage
of admission under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC.
13. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U
Checking your session…