- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gangajal Kunwar (Smt) And Others v. Sarju Pandey (Dead) By Lrs. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The litigation concerns ancestral agricultural property originally held by Pandey Kishan Ram. Three family branches emerged from this common ancestor. According to the defendant–appellant, a partition occurred in 1930, allocating one-third shares to each branch. After the death of Pandey Sukhdeo (third branch) in 1934, a will allegedly vested his one-third share in Smt. Rajwanti Kuer, who subsequently executed two registered sale deeds (dated 23-5-1950 and 19-6-1952) in favour of the appellant and earlier settled a portion (Plot No. 1542) with Jadunandan Choudhary in 1942.
The plaintiff-respondents denied the effectiveness of the 1930 partition and claimed joint title and possession, filing a suit for partition “by metes and bounds.” The trial court framed five issues, primarily determining: (a) unity of title and possession, and (b) whether the suit was barred by the alleged prior partition. After evaluating oral and documentary evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs were not in possession for 25 years and that the earlier partition barred the claim.
On first appeal, the High Court set aside the trial court judgment and decreed the suit, reasoning that the will had not been probated and, therefore, Rajwanti Kuer lacked authority to execute the sale deeds. The present second appeal challenges that High Court decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s findings on unity of title and possession and on the bar of a previous partition.
- Whether the un-probated will and the two sale deeds executed by Smt. Rajwanti Kuer could be questioned for the first time in appeal without pleadings or issues in the plaint.
- Whether, in light of the admitted 1930 partition, the plaintiffs’ suit for a fresh partition is maintainable.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court failed to examine the oral and documentary evidence on which the trial court relied.
- The will and the two sale deeds were never challenged in the plaint, nor were issues framed; therefore, the High Court could not invalidate them suo motu.
- The High Court’s reasoning is internally contradictory because it upheld an earlier sale deed to Jadunandan Choudhary while invalidating the later sale deeds executed by the same transferor.
- The 1930 partition is admitted; consequently, the suit is barred by previous partition.
Plaintiff-Respondents' Arguments
- Because the alleged will was not probated or proved, Rajwanti Kuer acquired no title, rendering her subsequent sale deeds void.
- The High Court correctly recognized unity of title and possession, justifying a decree for partition.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court identified the High Court’s decree as resting solely on an assumption that the will and the two sale deeds were invalid due to lack of probate. It held that:
- No challenge to the will or sale deeds appears in the plaint, nor were issues framed on their validity; the High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on those instruments.
- The High Court’s acceptance of the 1942 sale deed to Jadunandan Choudhary while rejecting the 1950 and 1952 sale deeds is internally inconsistent, demonstrating faulty reasoning.
- The High Court’s statement that the 1930 partition was “not challenged” cannot coexist with its conclusion that the suit was not barred by that very partition; this contradiction undermines its decision.
- The trial court’s findings—lack of unity of possession for 25 years and bar of previous partition—were based on detailed evaluation of evidence and remained unrefuted on proper legal grounds.
Consequently, the appellate judgment was deemed unsustainable, and the trial court’s dismissal required restoration.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; HIGH COURT JUDGMENT QUASHED; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT RESTORED.
Direct Impact: The plaintiffs’ suit for partition stands dismissed, and the defendant-appellant’s title and possession as upheld by the trial court remain undisturbed. Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that appellate courts cannot invalidate documents or decide issues absent pleadings and framed issues; however, it sets no new precedent beyond the facts of this case.
Order
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 23-9-1987 in first appeal where the High Court set aside the trial court judgment by which the plaintiff-respondents' suit was dismissed.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy we are herewith giving certain essential facts. The plaintiff-respondents' case is, both parties devolve from a common ancestor, namely, Pandey Kishan Ram. The genealogical table is reproduced below to understand the relationship between the parties.
3. The plaintiffs' case is, both parties are joint and jointly cultivating the suit land hence suit for partition by metes and bounds. Because of denial of such right by the principal defendant (Defendant 1) who is the appellant before us, the present suit is filed. The suit property devolved from the ancestors is not in dispute. In the year 1930 according to the principal defendant, partition took place giving 1/3rd share each to the aforesaid three branches shown in the genealogy. Thus as per the partition, Pandey Lallu Ram of the first branch got 1/3rd share, Bansi Ram Pandey and Gopi Ram Pandey of the second branch got separate takhta of their 1/3rd share while Pandey Sukhdeo of the third branch got 1/3rd with Rajwanti Kuer as maintenance-holder.
4. The case of the appellant is, after the death of Sukhdeo Ram in the year 1934 under a will Smt Rajwanti Kuer became the sole owner of land of 1/3rd of the third branch. Later on Rajwanti Kuer made raiyati settlement of Plot No. 1542 having an area of 0.22 acres with Jadunandan Choudhary as far back as the year 1942. After vesting of the zamindari interest in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Acts and in terms of the said transfer in favour of Jadunandan Choudhary his name is recorded in Register II of the State of Bihar and he has been regularly paying rent to the State of Bihar. Smt Rajwanti Kuer transferred her entire estate to the extent of her 1/3rd share, excluding what she transferred earlier to Jadunandan Choudhary through two registered sale deeds dated 23-5-1950 and 19-6-1952. The case of the appellant is that in spite of full knowledge of the plaintiffs about partition in the year 1930 and the transfers made by Smt Rajwanti Kuer, they have included all these lands in their claim in the partition suit. Since Rajwanti Kuer sold her entire interest in the property in favour of the present appellant through the aforesaid two registered sale deeds, inclusions of these properties in the suit is without any foundation. In fact, as a consequence thereof, the present appellant came in possession of the land possessed by the said Rajwanti Kuer. Rajwanti Kuer died on 20-12-1957. It is also submitted, in any case after coming in force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on 17-7-1956 she became absolute owner of the said property. The case set up by the present appellant before the trial court was that after vesting of the land in favour of the State of Bihar under the aforesaid Bihar Land Reforms Act on 26-1-1955, the plaintiffs have been filing return in K form. Further, the plaintiffs knew that they had only 1/3rd share in the zamindari property, so they were filing returns for their 1/3rd share only in Form K while the present appellant was filing return for his 2/3rd share, 1/3rd of his own of the second branch and 1/3rd having received from Smt Rajwanti Kuer of the third branch through two sale deeds as aforesaid. On the contest of the parties five issues were framed which are recorded hereunder:
1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit?
2. Is the suit maintainable as framed?
3. Is there unity of title and possession between the parties?
4. Is the suit barred by previous partition?
5. Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be entitled?
5. The main issues are Issues 3 and 4 which refer to unity of title and possession between the parties and the question whether the suit is barred by previous partition. The trial court disposed of these issues extensively referring to the oral and documentary evidence on record.
6. The trial court records:
“With reference to the case of the plaintiff about fraud being played upon him because he was illiterate. The submission that his left thumb impression was obtained in blank piece of paper which was subsequently converted into return.”
7. This was with reference to the filing of return in Form K for the aforesaid 2/3rd and 1/3rd share. On this the trial court records:
“No evidence has been led by the plaintiff on this point of fraud because it was beyond the scope of claim made by him….
In face of these documents of possession and title it was very material for the plaintiffs to prove as to how he claims 1/2 share in the property…. The primary point not proved by the plaintiff was that he was jointly and severally in possession of the suit property….”
8. After discussing, finally the trial court records the following findings:
“A careful analysis of oral evidence examined on behalf of the plaintiffs has shown that there has been no unity of title and possession of the suit land. The documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the defendant show that the plaintiffs have never been in possession of the suit land since last 25 years when the sale deed was executed by Mst Rajwanti Kuer in favour of the present appellant-Defendant 1.”
9. And finally the trial court records that the defendants have proved that they were in continuous possession of the suit land since the year 1952 and that the suit is barred by previous partition. Aggrieved by this the plaintiff filed appeal before the High Court which has set aside the trial court judgment and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which is impugned before us.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the foundation of decision by the High Court is based on the finding that the will in favour of Rajwanti Kuer was not probated, hence she would have no right and title and thus she would have no right to execute the two registered sale deeds. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the judgment of the High Court primarily on the ground that while setting aside the trial court judgment it has not adverted to the relevant evidence and points on which the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It cursorily allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court judgment by holding both the aforesaid will and two sale deeds not to be valid. On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the appellate court has referred to all the submissions made by the parties and has rightly drawn the conclusion that there is unity of title and possession between the parties. The will itself has not been probated, or proved thus no right would flow over the properties of the third branch in favour of Rajwanti Kuer, hence transfer made by her in favour of the appellant through the said two sale deeds could be of no consequence. In order to succeed the appellant has to prove that the said transfer is valid, which it is not. Hence the decision of the High Court does not call for any interference by this Court.
11. It is interesting to record that the High Court records that these sale deeds are admitted. When it refers to these sale deeds, then it also includes the sale deed in favour of the said Jadunandan Choudhary. If Rajwanti Kuer could not have transferred the property in favour of the present appellant then how could she have transferred it to Jadunandan Choudhary, which is upheld by the High Court? This apart, we find from the plaint itself, there is no challenge of the said two sale deeds nor is there any issue on it. Then for the first time, how could the High Court have decided it for the first time. By doing so the High Court misled itself and fell into error. The High Court further records that it is difficult to say that Rajwanti Kuer got title and possession of the land of Sukhdeo by virtue of the said will. The High Court disbelieves the will as it holds it not proved nor probated. We find so far in this will also, there is no challenge made in the plaint, no issue raised, hence the High Court for the first time should not have recorded this finding which cannot be sustained. Once the said two sale deeds and the will cannot be disbelieved or set aside as they have not been challenged, the claim of the plaintiff cannot succeed. We further find that submission on behalf of the appellant has also merit when it is submitted that the appellate court in the present case has not adverted to those documentary and oral evidence on which the trial court has based its finding.
12. We further find the High Court records:
“The earlier partition in the year 1930/1931 between the brothers of the ancestors has not been challenged.”
After recording this finding, it finally concludes, the suit is not barred by previous partition. Once the partition in 1930 is not challenged, which means the partition has taken place between the parties then the finding that suit is not barred by previous partition is conflict in itself. This cannot be sustained. To meet this faintly it was also submitted, yes there was partition but that was partial partition of the house but not of the agricultural land. We do not find any such finding recorded by any of the two courts below. Hence this submission also cannot be sustained. It is also interesting to record, on one hand the appellate court upholds unity of title and possession by disbelieving the said two sale deeds executed in favour of the present appellant, holding Smt Rajwanti Kuer had no title but simultaneously upholds the sale deed by her in favour of Jadunandan Choudhary. This itself is contradictory.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons we find that the judgment given by the High Court in appeal cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Findings recorded by the trial court are based on considerations of evidence for which it has given good reasons. Hence, we uphold its judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Costs on the parties.
Alert