IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.462 of 2006
DAHAUR YADAV
Versus
MUNGA LAL YADAV
-----------
9 7.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner.
The contesting opposite parties despite service of
notices have not appeared.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated
14.2.2006 whereby and whereunder the Court below has
rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for
admitting a registered sale deed dated 18.10.1996 into
evidence.
Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
exhibiting of the said sale deed was absolutely necessary to
prove the case of the plaintiff/petitioner as with regard to the
title of the land in question which was purchased by him on
10.4.1989 from one Mouje Yadav who had inherited the said
land from Most Tahti through her predeceased daughter
Sugabati and wife of aforesaid Mouje Yadav in the backdrop
of the fact when the contesting defendants in their written
statement had taken plea that Most Tehta had died issueless
and no daughter namely Sugabati. In this context it was
submitted by the counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid sale
deed was a clinching document to prove that Mouje Yadav,
the vendor of plaintiff/petitioner had inherited the property
2
of Most Tahti after the death of his wife Sugabati who was
the daughter of Most Tehta and was dealing with such
property by executing sale deed. It has been the grievance of
the petitioner that the Court below has shut out a relevant
evidence by the impugned order and has thus committed
material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that
the Court below has rather proceeded mechanically in
rejecting the application of the petitioner without examining
the aforementioned sale deed dated 18.10.1996 by holding
that the aforesaid sale deed in question is in respect of such
a plot which is not actually the subject matter of the suit
property. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below ought
to have looked into the matter from a different angle i.e.
whether the document in question was germane and
necessary for deciding one of the main issue with regard to
the title of the plaintiff/petitioner based on the capacity of
his vendor namely Mouje Yadav who is said to have inherited
the land in question from his mother-in-law Most Tehta
through her daughter Most Sugawati Devi.
That having been not done, this Court would hold that
the impugned order dated 14.2.2006 suffers from both
material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error and the same
is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to
the Court below to again examinee the relevance of the said
3
sale deed in the light of the issues framed by it. If upon such
consideration, the Court below finds that for recording the
findings on the crucial question of right, title and interest of
the land in question of the plaintiff/petitioner, the said sale
deed dated 18.10.1996 has some relevant, it will allow the
prayer of the petitioner to admit the same into evidence by
exhibiting as plaintiff’s documentary evidence but on the
other hand if it is found that the document is not relevant,
such prayer of the petitioner will be rejected afresh by a
reasoned order.
With the aforementioned observations/directions, this
application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)