The present dispute relates to ejectment of the plaintiff appellant from the partnership firm in the premises, residential house situate in Masjidwali Gali, Bara Bazar, Dadri town, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, G.B.Nagar. The plaintiff appellant is son and the respondent defendant is his 85 years old father.
At the outset it may be mentioned that while entertaining the appeal between the father and son, this Court on 4.9.2009 had sent the matter to "Mediation and Conciliation Centre" of this Court to enable the said centre to make an endeavour to settle the dispute in question. The conciliation has failed and the matter has again come up for adjudication, that is, for admission of second appeal. Through this second appeal appellant's son has assailed a judgment and decree dated 13.8.2009 passed by 3rd Addl. District Judge, G.B.Nagar confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007 rendered by Civil Judge (Senior Division), G.B.Nagar while disposing of three suits by the contesting parties (Suit No.171 of 2004- Ami Chand Vs. Mahesh Chand, Suit No.186 of 2004-- Ami Chand Vs. Mahesh Chand and suit No.265 of 2004-Ami Chand Vs. Mahesh Chand). It emerges from the record that Mahesh Chand, son and father Ami Chand were carrying out business as members of partnership firm. It was alleged that Amichand (father) has purchased a residential house on 27.1.70 by his own resources. Earlier he has two sons and three 2 daughters. The younger son Dinesh Chand had died and now Mahesh Chand remained his only son. Three daughters are married and are settled in their marital home. It was pleaded in suit no.171 of 2004 being leading case that Ami Chand father had allowed his elder son Mahesh Chand to live in the residential house purchased by him with his family members as a licensee. This permission was accorded in the year 1977. The son Mahesh Chand along with his wife and children came to stay in the house owned by the father in the year 1977. The son had promised father to provide him food and facility to sustain himself in life. Later on the relations were restrained. It was alleged that the family members of Mahesh Chand (son) were misbehaving with the father Ami Chand. Hindrances were caused in his daily routine of worshipping, religious rituals etc. Charges of misbehaviour, violence etc. have been levelled against his son and his family members. A notice was sent through counsel on 1.3.2004 by which the licence to stay in the house was terminated. Mahesh Chand (son) was asked to vacate the premises. On refusal to do so, suit no.171 of 2004 was filed.
Son Mahesh Chand had filed his written statement and in this suit and other suits it was indicated that he was not the licensee but the owner of the residential house in dispute. He had purchased the house through a registered saledeed dated 11.5.2000. A will was also executed on the same date, i.e., 11.5.2000 by the father Ami Chand in favour of his son Mahesh Chand. In the year 2004, a firm was wound up. It has been further stated that his father Ami Chand got a saledeed executed from him on 14.5.2001 (after about one year of executing the first saledeed of 11.5.2000) executed by the son in favour of father transferring the property back to his father. No sale consideration was mentioned in the saledeed , as such no legal rights accrued in favour of father Amichand to claim title over the residential house in dispute which had already been passed in favour of Mahesh Chand , son on 11.5.2000. It was pleaded that the suit was unfounded. It was barred by sections 34 and 41 of Specific Relief Act. Son was always prepared to discharge his duty towards his father. It was also pleaded that the father was not in a proper state of mind.
Similar pleadings were taken in other suits. Seven issues were framed in the first suit followed by seven issues in the second suit and three issues were framed in the third suit. The son Mahesh Chand in suit no.186 of 2004 had asked for declaratory decree that the saledeed which was registered on 14.5.2001 was null and void and on the basis of such saledeed no title was passed to the father 3 Amichand. No rights were available to him to claim title , ownership in the residential house where his family members were residing. Oral and documentary evidence were brought before the courts below. Father Amichand had filed several documents,affidavit, original saledeed dated 27.1.70 by which he had purchased the residential house from his own resources. The will dated 11.5.2000 and saledeed dated 14.5.2001, notice and other documents were filed. The respondent son had filed an affidavit sworn by one of his sisters. Documentary evidence was also produced by him.
Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that Amichand father (respondent herein) had purchased the property on 27.1.1970. A saledeed was executed by him on 11.5.2000 but later on 14.5.2001, the same property house was transferred in his name. It was alleged by the son Mahesh Chand ( appellant herein) throughout that in the saledeed dated 14.5.2001, no consideration had been mentioned. It was a null and void saledeed. In the absence of the amount of consideration, the saledeed itself is null and void and no title passed to the father. He is still owner of the property. Learned counsel for the appellant as was done before the lower courts has placed reliance on the cases of Sadasivam Vs. K.Doraisamy (1977 All CJ 1074) and Shyam Sunder Agarwal Vs. Prescribed Authority, Mathura and others ( 1997All CJ 106) in support of his submission. According to Sri Saxena, the said saledeed dated 14.5.2001 was executed without there being no consideration and there was an understanding between the parties that it will not be acted upon. Such a saledeed would be invalid. As far as other allegations are concerned, he has denied the allegations. According to him his father is still occupying the southern portion and living in the said portion peacefully.
Both the courts after going through the saledeed dated 14.5.2001 had recorded a finding of fact that there was a mention of sale consideration by the Sub- Registrar. Rupees one lakh was indicated as sale consideration. In view of the said consideration, stamp was purchased. Even the first appellate court has taken note that there was specific mention of the sale consideration and on the basis of mentioning of the sale consideration, it was held by the courts that the sale deed was legally valid and proper. The courts have placed reliance on the cases of Narain Prasad Vs. DDC, Allahabad and others (1997 All.L.J. 2111) and Vidyadhar Vs. Mankikrao and another [ 2000 (Suppl) R.D.399] to hold that it was intention of the 4 parties which was to be taken note of . The intention of the party was to transfer the ownership from the hands of Mahesh Chand to enable the plaintiff Ami Chand to obtain loan on the said property residential house from the Financial Institution in furtherance of the business requirement. Naturally no Bank or Financial Institution will provide the loan to a party without being satisfied that the property pledged with it the borrower had a title and such a property is free from all the encumbrances and charges. Circumstances were pleaded before the court and taken note of the fact that Amichand wanted to pledge the property to a Financial Institution and as such the saledeed was required through which the title to the property was transferred to the purchaser. Both the courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that Amichand by virtue of saledeed dated 14.5.2001 had acquired the title and is owner of the property. As far as possession is concerned, the contesting parties have admitted that he was living in the southern room and was in possession over a portion of the house. Thus both the courts have held that father Amichand not only had title over the house in dispute but was actually in physical possession of the one portion of the house suit no.171/04 and 165/04 brought by the father , that is , Amichand were decreed. The suit filed by the son no.186/2004 was dismissed. The appellate court has also recorded a detailed finding and gave detailed reasons to arrive at conclusion. It has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.
In view of the above discussion, it is amply clear that these are findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises. As far as the validity of saledeed dated 14.5.2001 is concerned, both the courts have taken into account the latest decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The findings and conclusions are supported by law also. Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, The appeals are dismissed. Consequences shall follow.
VPC/2.2.2010