SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.
(2.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2016 and 13.12.2016 respectively, passed by the learned District and Additional Session Judge-VIII, Giridih in Title Appeal No.03 of 2014 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the Title Appeal No.03 of 2014 and affirm the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 and 03.01.2014 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Giridih in Title Suit No.185 of 2002.
(3.) In brief, the case of appellants/plaintiff in the court below was that 2.91 acres of land of Khata No.29 of Mouja Khetko, Thana No.257, Bagodar, District Giridih was recorded in the name of one Kewal Mahto. After the death of Kewal Mahto and his wife Gunjari Devi, the said land was inherited by their only daughter, Mosmat Tekani Devi, who came in exclusive possession over the same. It was further case that Mosmat Tekani Devi fell in need of money and she sold the said land to the appellants/plaintiff vide a sale deed dated 17.12.90 after receipt of consideration money of Rs.15,000/-. After the purchase, the appellants/plaintiff came into exclusive possession of the said land and he executed two wells on plot no.4044, raised a compound wall around it and planted a Kathal tree and two bamboo clumps on plot no.4044. The appellants/plaintiff also planted two bamboos clumps on plot no.4048. The appellants/plaintiff was further made out the case in the court below that in the month of August, 2000 he went to the Anchal Office to get this land mutated in his name, but he came to know that the defendants had already got their name mutated with respect to half of the land area i.e. 1.45.1/2 acres on the basis of a sale deed no.3098 dated 12.03.1991 executed by Mosmat Takani. The appellants/plaintiff also learnt that the sale deed dated 17.12.90 executed in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by a deed of cancellation dated 12.03.91. Thereafter the appellants/plaintiff obtained certified copies of the deed of cancellation and the sale deed no.3098 dated 11.10.2001 and 09.11.2001 respectively and filed a demand cancellation case no.67 of 2000-01. The appellants/plaintiff has further stated that on the basis of the sale deed dated 12.03.91, the defendants interfered in the possession of the plaintiff on 15.11.02. The cause of action for the suit as per the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiff, arose in the month of August, 2000 and also on 09.07.2001, 11.10.2001, 15.11.2002 and thereafter on day to day basis. The suit was valued at Rs.7,500/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the appellants/plaintiff was prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) For a decree declaring the sale deed no.3098 dated 12.03.91 executed by Mosmat Takani in favour of defendants Gango Mahto and Mohan Mahto as illegal, inoperative, void and paper transactions, so far the suit lands is concerned. (b) For the costs of the suit and the interest thereon pendentelite. (c) For any other relief/reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled under the law and equity. On receipt of summons, both the defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement. The defendants have contended that the suit is not maintainable in present form and it is barred by the law of limitation, waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. The appellants/plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and it is grossly undervalued. According to the defendants, the suit is also hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The respondents/defendants denied the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiff and have stated that although the sale deed no.14551 dated 17.12.90 came into existence but it was without consideration. Daulat Mahto only promised to pay the consideration money of Rs.15,000/- to Mosmat Tekani. Only on the said promise, the sale deed was executed and registered. However, the plaintiff did not pay the consideration amount to Mosmat Tekani. As a result, Mosmat Tekani cancelled the plaintiff's sale deed dated 17.12.90 by a deed of cancellation no.3073 dated 12.03.91. On the same day i.e. on 12.03.91 itself, Mosmat Tekani executed another sale deed no.3098 in favour of the defendants with respect of 1.45 1/2 acres of land under Khata No.29 for a consideration money of Rs.7500/-. The respondents/defendants further pleaded that the Mosmat Tekani never delivered her khas possession of the suit land to the appellants/plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale deed because of the non-payment of the consideration money by him. Rather, she remained in actual khas possession over the suit land. The respondents/defendants have further stated that the appellants/plaintiff did not dig up any well or raised boundary wall on plot no.4044 and also did not plant any Kathal tree or bamboo clumps. In fact, it was Gunjari Devi (the mother of the Mosmat Tekani) who had dug up wells and planted Kathal tree and bamboo clumps over the suit land. After the purchase of 1.45 1/2 acres of land from Mosamat Tekni, the two defendants came into its possession and since then, they have been growing crops like potato, maize and paddy over it. The rest 1.45 1/2 acres out of total 2.91 acres of land remained in the possession of Mosamat Tekani and it was inherited by her legal heirs after her death. On the basis of these grounds, the respondents/defendants have contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the above, the trial court has framed the issues and after discussing the evidences and the exhibits, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved with the same, appellant/plaintiff has filed the appeal being Title Appeal No.03 of 2014 which was decided vide judgment dated 28.11.2016 by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Giridih who affirmed the finding of the trial court. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants/plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal. ;