Citation : 2005 Lcoal Law (CG) 82
V.K. Shrivastava J. has allowed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, restoring the trial court’s dismissal of a suit that sought to invalidate a 1967 sale of agricultural land at Nawapara, Raigarh. The judgment sets aside a contrary first appellate decree from 22 July 1991 and reaffirms that a co-owner can validly transfer an undivided share under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The dispute involved two brothers who once held 4.04 acres jointly. After one brother, Sadvo, sold one acre by registered deed on 3 May 1967 to the appellant, the plaintiffs, heirs of the other brother, challenged the transfer. They claimed the family remained joint, no partition had taken place, and that the sale without their consent was not binding. Mutation followed in 1977 in the buyer’s name. Years later, in a suit seeking declaration and possession, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings to allege dispossession on 15 June 1985.
The trial court found the land to be joint family property but held that Sadvo could sell his undivided share, that the purchaser had been in continuous possession since 1967, and that the suit was time-barred. The first appellate court reversed, treating the buyer’s failure to incorporate a consequential amendment as an admission, reading revenue entries up to 1975-76 as joint possession, and declaring the sale ineffective against the plaintiffs.
On second appeal, the High Court corrected those findings. It held there was no admission of dispossession, since the controversy over possession remained joined and the court had framed issues that both sides tried with evidence. The plaintiffs’ own testimony undermined their dispossession plea. One plaintiff stated the buyer had been in possession since the 1977 mutation, while the other said possession had continued from the date of purchase. That evidence defeated the claim that dispossession occurred within 12 years before suit.
Addressing limitation, the Court distinguished Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It noted that the plaintiffs failed to prove dispossession within 12 years to support a possessory suit under Article 64. At the same time, since the defendant did not plead adverse possession, a title-based suit under Article 65 could not be non-suited on that ground alone. Even so, the core question was whether the 1967 transfer was void.
On validity, the Court emphasized Section 44 TPA. A co-owner legally competent in that behalf may transfer his share or any interest. The transferee acquires the transferor’s rights, including joint possession and the right to seek partition, subject to existing conditions. The first appellate court erred by treating the sale as ineffective for want of partition and by hinting at benami without pleadings or proof. The registered sale by Sadvo for consideration could not be declared void merely because the property was undivided. With those findings, the High Court answered the substantial questions of law against the plaintiffs, set aside the first appellate decree, and restored the trial court’s judgment. Each party will bear its own costs.
Case Details : Second Appeal No. 356 of 1991, Nirashi Bai vs. Ramlal and Ors. (07.10.2005)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.S. Patel, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Awadh Tripathi, Adv. (for Nos. 1 and 2) and M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (for No. 3)
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VIII Rule 5; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100; Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 – Section 44
Cases Referred:
Pataria and Ors. v. Mst. Chitia and Ors. 1994 (1) VIBHA 224
======
संपत्ति – घोषणा
प्रमुख प्रावधान: स्थानांतरण संपत्ति अधिनियम, 1882 की धारा 44; सीमांकन अधिनियम का अनुच्छेद 65
प्रतिवादी संयुक्त परिवार में रहते थे और विवादित भूमि की खेती संयुक्त रूप से की जाती थी। भूमि उनके पिता तथा प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 1 और 2 के संयुक्त नाम पर दर्ज थी और उनके संयुक्त कब्जे में थी। प्रतिवादियों को बिना बताए, उनके पिता ने उस भूमि का एक हिस्सा पंजीकृत बिक्री विलेख के माध्यम से अपीलकर्ता को बेच दिया। बाद में पिता की मृत्यु हो गई।
अपीलकर्ता ने खरीदी गई भूमि के हिस्से का नामांतरण कराने के लिए आवेदन किया, जो स्वीकार कर लिया गया और भूमि का वह हिस्सा अपीलकर्ता के नाम पर दर्ज कर दिया गया। इसके बाद प्रतिवादियों ने इस बिक्री को चुनौती देते हुए घोषणा और कब्ज़े के लिए वाद दायर किया।
न्यायालय के निर्णय:
ट्रायल कोर्ट: वाद को समय barred (limitation) मानते हुए खारिज कर दिया।
प्रथम अपीलीय न्यायालय: अदालत ने पाया कि परिवार की सम्पत्ति का विभाजन नहीं हुआ था, इसलिए पिता अकेले सम्पत्ति का हिस्सा बेचने के अधिकारप्राप्त नहीं थे। प्रतिवादियों की सहमति के बिना की गई बिक्री उनके विरुद्ध प्रभावी नहीं मानी गई। इसलिए अपील स्वीकार कर वाद डिक्री कर दिया गया।
द्वितीय अपील (उच्च न्यायालय):
प्रश्न 1: क्या वाद समय barred था?
निर्णय: प्रतिवादी यह साबित नहीं कर सके कि उन्हें कब्जे से 12 वर्ष के अंदर बेदखल किया गया था, इसलिए अनुच्छेद 64 लागू नहीं होता। उनका दावा शीर्षाधिकार (title) पर आधारित था, न कि पूर्व कब्जे पर। इसलिए अनुच्छेद 65 लागू होता है और उस स्थिति में वाद समय barred नहीं माना जाएगा। अतः वाद सीमांकन की दृष्टि से बाधित नहीं था।
प्रश्न 2: क्या बिक्री अवैध थी?
उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि धारा 44 के अनुसार, अविभाजित हिस्से का हस्तांतरण वैध होता है और खरीदार को विक्रेता के हिस्से का अधिकार प्राप्त हो जाता है। यह बिक्री पंजीकृत दस्तावेज़ और मूल्य पर आधारित थी, इसलिए इसे केवल इस आधार पर शून्य नहीं माना जा सकता कि परिवार में विभाजन नहीं हुआ था।
अंतिम फैसला: ट्रायल कोर्ट का निर्णय बहाल किया गया। प्रथम अपीलीय न्यायालय का निर्णय रद्द कर दिया गया।
दूसरी अपील सफल हुई।
