- (1.) "Fraud unravels everything" and any property right claimed by the person which is based on a fraud cannot confer even a semblance of such right and the present case is a glaring example of defendants-appellants insisting on such right upto this Court in the present second appeal having lost before the two Courts below who by the detailed judgments granted concurrently the decree of possession in favour of plaintiff Jethmal Sharma, the true owner of the plot of land No. 202, situated at LIGH Scheme, Akhliya Chauraha, Jodhpur. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Maria Margardia Sequeira Femandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, 2012 5 SCC 370 emphasized the need to see "Truth" as the North Star or guiding star, as the foundation of justice in very touching language. The relevant portion is quoted below.: Truth as guiding star in judicial process 32. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. 33. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty-Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 34. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India, 1991 Supp1 SCC 271, this Court observed that in such a situation a question that arises for consideration is whether the presiding officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions-whether discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done. 35. What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice. 36. In Ritesh Tewari and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2010 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads as under: ...Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. ...The quest of truth continues...., also in this case.
(2.) These two second appeals of defendants Mohd. Ramjan S/o Abdul Gafoor (CSA No. 49/2012) and LRs. of Mehboob Khan (CSA No. 50/2012) are filed against the plaintiff-respondent Jethmal S/o Girdhar Lal Brahmin (Shrama) against the Judgment and decree dtd. 23-1.2012 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Appeal No. 17/2006- Mohd. Ramjan vs. Jethmal and Ors. by which the learned lower first appellate Court dismissing the defendant's appeals and upheld the judgment and possession decree dtd. 24.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 113/2003- Jethmal vs. Mohd Ramjan and Ors. whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit for possession in respect of suit premises, a plot of land situated at 2012, LIGH Scheme near Akhliya Choraha Jodhpur, whose market value phenomenally increased over the period.
(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present second appeals are that the plaintiff Jethmal Sharma filed the present suit on 31.5.1985 by setting up a case that the said plot of land No. 202 was allotted to him in the year 1956 by the Development Authority, Jodhpur for Rs. 843/- and regular "Patta" was not issued at that relevant point of time and process of that was going on by correspondence between the Development Authority and the Government, which "patta" was finally issued by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur which was created in the year 1960 only, on 12.2.1981 after 24 years, but in the meanwhile in the year 1979 when he started raising construction on this plot of land allotted to him way back in the year 1956, the defendant-appellant, Mohd. Ramjan restricted and restrained him from doing so and claimed that he, Mohd. Ramjan, had purchased this plot of land under a registered sale-deed on 25.7.1978. This sale-deed dtd. 25.7.1978 which was registered on 26.9.1978 was purportedly executed by one Jethmal in favour of appellant Mohd. Ramjan, which was held to be result of fraud played by accused Manohar Lal and Ashok Joshi, clerk in the UIT, Jodhpur, who impersonating as Jethmal Sharma (the plaintiff) executed the said impugned sale-deed in favour of defendant Mohd. Ramjan and these accused persons were convicted by the competent Court as aforesaid and said Mohd. Ramjan in turn created tenancy in favour of two persons over the plot of land in question, one Panna Lal S/o Basti Mal, who died during the litigation and is represented by his LRs. and another Mehboob Khan S/o Nakshu Khan the appellant in CSA No. 50/2012, who also died during the pendency of first appeal and the present second appeal has been filed by his LRs. Munawar Khan and two others.;