2025:JHHC:10161 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F. A. No. 177 of 2023 Vinay Kumar Tiwari, son of Sri Radha Raman Tiwari, aged 66 years, resident of Village- Ranipur, P.O. & P.S.- Vijalpur, District- Gopalganj (Bihar) … … Plaintiff/Appellant -Versus- Sushila Kuwar @ Sushila Devi, wife of Late Manmohan Pandey, D/o- Not known to the Plaintiff/Appellant, resident of Village- Kalyanpur Tola Chowtarwa, P.O. & P.S.- Kataya, District- Gopalganj, Bihar, at present residing at Plot No. 2K/60, Bariatu Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi … … Defendant/Respondent --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate : Md. Imran Beig, Advocate : Mr. Manjeet Kumar Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Srikant Swaroop, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate --- 18/26.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 29th April, 2023 (decree singed on 08.05.2023) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-XI, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 188 of 2018 whereby the original suit was dismissed. 3. The appellant was the plaintiff in the original suit in which he had prayed for the following reliefs: (a) On adjudication, a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff, declaring his right, title and interest over the suit property. (b) After above adjudication, further decree be passed putting the plaintiff in khas possession over the property after evicting the defendant therefrom through the process of law. (c) On adjudication, a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property? (d) Cost of the suit be awarded (e) any other relief/reliefs, which Your Honour may deem fit and proper, be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 2025:JHHC:10161 2 4. The suit property is the land measuring an area of 2482.92 Sq. Ft. equivalent to 5.7 Decimals more or less marked as Plot No. 2K/60 of Bariatu Housing Colony, Ranchi alongwith a house standing thereon being numbered 2K/60 having 1000 Sq. Ft. of built-up area appertaining to Ranchi Municipal Holding No. 2154/A155, within old Ward No. VIIC, subsequently Ward No. 20 present Ward No. 08 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi situated at Village- Bariatu, P.S.- Bariatu, P.S. No. 193, District- Ranchi, is the subject matter of the instant suit, which is more fully described in the schedule of the plaint . Case of the plaintiff 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to the maternal Uncle (Phupha) of the plaintiff namely, Manmohan Pandey, who had purchased the same from the Bihar State Housing Board, by virtue of a registered Deed of Sale being No. 8634, Serial No. 9279, dated 13.08.1990. After the said purchase, Sri Manmohan Pandey had acquired absolute right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and enjoyed the same as lawful owner till his lifetime. Manmohan Pandey died on 28.02.1998 at Ranchi, leaving behind his widow Chandra Kala Pandey as his only legal heir and successor, who inherited and succeeded the interest of her husband over the suit property and came in possession over the same. Since Manmohan Pandey had no issue from Chandra Kala Pandey, therefore he (Manmohan Pandey) brought the defendant in his house and she (defendant) started living in the suit property with Manmohan Pandey. Manmohan Pandey had never solemnized marriage with the defendant and had also never given her the status of wife, which will be evident from the service book of Manmohan Pandey, where only the name of Chandra Kala Pandey finds place. After the death of Manmohan Pandey, his widow Chandra Kala Pandey, being the lawful owner of the suit property and out of great love and affection towards the plaintiff, transferred the suit property to him by virtue of a registered Deed of Gift being No. 1875, Book No.1, Volume No. 197, Page No. 561 to 612, dated 17.04.2017. During the lifetime of Manmohan 2025:JHHC:10161 3 Pandey and Chandra Kala Pandey, the plaintiff usually come to Ranchi and used to reside with them in the suit property. After the above gift, the plaintiff took electric connection in his name and also got a holding in his name from Ranchi Municipal Corporation and Chandra Kala Pandey after alienating the suit property to the plaintiff by virtue of a registered Deed of Gift, died on 21.05.2017. After her death, the plaintiff being the lawful owner of the suit property requested the defendant on 22.07.2017 to leave the suit property and hand over vacant possession of the same to him. Initially the defendant agreed and took time till January, 2018. It was assured by her that she will definitely vacate the same after getting suitable accommodation and as per the assurance of the defendant, the plaintiff approached her on 04.02.2018 and again requested her to vacate the suit property, but this time to his surprise, she flatly denied and started claiming the suit property to be her property. The defendant claimed the suit property on the basis that she is the widow of Manmohan Pandey and after his death and of Chandra Kala Pandey, she has inherited and succeeded over the same. 6. The defendant had never been the wife of Manmohan Pandey, she was never married to Manmohan Pandey as per Hindu Law and she has got no right and interest over the properties left by Manmohan Pandey, including the suit property. Chandra Kala Pandey, while she was alive had filed a Title Suit in the Court of Munsif at Gopalganj against the defendant and one Nandan Pandey for declaration of the Deed of Sale executed by the defendant, with respect to the properties of Manmohan Pandey, as void ab initio. The defendant with the connivance of Nandan Pandey and other has sold the properties of Manmohan Pandey, that too without having valid right to sell the same. Apart from above Title Suit, for the said illegal acts of the defendant and Nandan Pandey, Chandra Kala Pandey had also filed a complaint case against them. After mounting pressure upon the defendant by the plaintiff for vacating the suit property, she (defendant) has started and was trying to alienate the suit property by illegal means and the plaintiff apprehended that she may succeed in her illegal act and if she is not 2025:JHHC:10161 4 restrained, then he will definitely suffer irreparable loss and injury. The acts and activities of the defendant made the plaintiff to move the learned trial court for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property and hence the necessity of the suit. The defendant by no means has any interest over the suit property, but in order to grab the same by illegal means, she is making out a false claim over the suit property. 7. The plaintiff claimed that the cause of action for initiation of the suit arose within the jurisdiction of the learned trial court on 17.04.2017 when Chandra Kala Pandey transferred the suit property to the plaintiff by virtue of a registered Deed of Gift, on 22.07.2017 when the defendant assured to vacate the suit property in the month of January 2018, on 04.02.2018 when defendant finally refused to vacate the suit property and started putting illegal claim over it and still continuing and the plaintiff valued the suit to the tune of Rs. 25,90,000/- and paid an ad-valorem Court Fees thereof. Case of the defendant 8. The defendant had appeared and filed her written statement on 08.01.2019 stating therein that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata, constructive as well as actual and the suit is liable not to proceed on the principles of res sub-judice. She further stated that the suit is hit by the principles of delay and latches, limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and the plaintiff has got no cause of action and the suit suffers from multifariousness and the frame of the suit is bad and the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. She further stated that the suit is fit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and cause of action. 9. The defendant admitted that the suit property was bought in the name of Manmohan Pandey. She denied that Manmohan Pandey died leaving behind his widow Chandra Kala Pandey as his only legal heir and successor as the defendant is the 2nd wife of Manmohan Pandey. The marriage between Manmohan Pandey and the defendant was duly solemnized, with all rites and ceremonies and with the consent and as 2025:JHHC:10161 5 per the desire of his first wife Chandrakala Pandey as there was no issue born from the first wife. The defendant further stated that Manmohan Pandey had no issue from Chandrakala Pandey and the defendant had started living in the suit property with Manmohan Pandey. The defendant was brought into the suit property by Manmohan Pandey after marriage. She further denied that Manmohan Pandey had never solemnized marriage with her and had never given her the status of his wife. In this regard, she stated that Manmohan Pandey had given her the status of his wife in all senses; Adhar, Voter ID, LPG gas connection, all show the defendant to be his wife. She further stated that with the consent and participation of Manmohan Pandey, one Joint Bank Account (Savings Bank Account No. 2967) maintained at Indian Overseas Bank, Bariatu Road Branch was also opened by Manmohan Pandey and even one joint bank account (Savings Bank Account No. 100610100001320) maintained at Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Bariatu Branch was also opened by both Chandra Kala Pandey and the defendant. The statement regarding only Chandra Kala Pandey's name finding a mention in Manmohan Pandey's service book is irrelevant as both wives have lived together for decades and had joint bank account. Moreover, Manmohan Pandey had taken a Unit Trust Membership bearing Membership No. 202941510043306 with himself and the defendant as the members and Chandra Kala Pandey as the nominee. She denied and disputed that during the lifetime of Manmohan Pandey and Chandra Kala Pandey, the plaintiff usually came to Ranchi and used to reside with them in the suit property. 10. She further stated that after the death of Manmohan Pandey, the plaintiff intentionally blackmailed Chandra Kala Pandey and tried to develop intimacy taking advantage of being her relative. He took advantage of her old age as he had developed evil eyes over the property. The relationship claimed by the plaintiff with Chandra Kala Pandey is fiduciary relationship. The plaintiff used his undue influence over her and fraudulently got the said so called gift deed manipulated and prepared in his name. It is stated that the said gift deed is invalid 2025:JHHC:10161 6 and lacks attestation. She further stated that the said purported gift deed is invalid, void and nonest in the eyes of law. It lacks attestation. Moreover, the purported witness to the said gift deed is power of attorney holder through whom the plaintiff has got the suit filed. It is further stated that the said gift deed is forged and fabricated and the signature on the gift deed is not of Chandra Kala Pandey. It is denied and disputed that the date put under the signature is genuine or in her own hand-writing. The defendant denied and disputed the genuineness of the said deed and of the signature and claimed to put the plaintiff to strict proof thereof. She further disputed that there is any thumb impression or finger impression / print of her on the said gift deed and claimed to put the plaintiff to strict proof of genuineness. She admitted that Chandra Kala Pandey died on 21.05.2017. She further stated that it was only for the first time in the suit that such a picture was projected that the plaintiff had at no point of time approached the defendant for vacating the suit premises. She admitted the institution of a Title Suit by Chandra Kala Pandey against the defendant and one Nandan Pandey as a matter of record. She further stated that the allegations in the said title suit are not genuine and are rather fabricated and caused by and with the connivance of the plaintiff and even otherwise, no evidence was given by her in the suit. She stated that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has got no cause of action. She also claimed that sufficient Court Fee has not been paid by the plaintiff and disputed the plaintiff's entitlements to the reliefs sought. She further stated that the suit is fit to be dismissed with cost. 11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had framed altogether eight issues for consideration, which are as follows: I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable with valid cause of action? II. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? III. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties? 2025:JHHC:10161 7 IV. Whether the suit is barred by constructive Res Judicata and Principles of Res Sub-judice? V. Whether Chandra Kala Pandey was entitled to alienate the suit property? VI. Whether the plaintiff has any valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit property? VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or reliefs as claimed for? VIII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? 12. The learned trial court considered the materials available on record and recorded its findings in Paragraph-8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Judgment which are quoted as under: “Issue No. V & VI 8. This is the main issue to be decided which will cloud the land with respect to the matter in dispute in between the parties to the suit, therefore, it is taken up first for the determination. From perusal of the case record, it appears that the following are the admitted facts in this case: - (A) Chandra Kala Pandey is first wife of Man Mohan Pandey. (B) The Defendant is second wife of Man Mohan Pandey. (C) Manmohan Pandey, who had purchased the suit property. The plaintiff in support of his fact has exhibited service book of Man Mohan Pandey as Ex-P2 where only the name of Chandrakala Pandey finds place as wife of Manmohan Pandey. In a scenario where the matrimony has no legal sanction, the second wife will have no claim over her husband’s ancestral property. The same, however, does not hold true in case of self- acquired property of the husband. He would be free to leave it to anyone, including the second wife, through a will. However, in case he dies without leaving a will (known as intestate in legal parlance), his properties will be divided among his legal heirs, according to the succession laws applicable to him. The defendant has resisted the claim of plaintiff on the ground that Manmohan Pandey had given the status of his wife to the defendant in all senses; Adhar, Voter ID, LPG gas connection, all shown the defendant to be his wife. It is also pertinent to mention in this regard that with the consent and participation of Manmohan Pandey one Joint Bank Account (Savings Bank Account No. 2967) 2025:JHHC:10161 8 maintained at Indian Overseas Bank, Bariatu Road Branch was also opened by Manmohan Pandey. Further, even one joint bank account (Savings Bank Account No. 100640100001320) maintained at Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Bariatu Branch was also opened by both Chandra Kala Pandey and the defendant. The defendant has not exhibited any chit of document neither adduced any evidence in support of her statement. The defendant has also failed to prove any document in this case in support of her fact, accordingly, the Issue No.V is decided in favour of plaintiff. As such from the circumstances of the case and also from the evidence available on record it has been established that Plaintiff’s Phupha (Manmohan Pandey), till he was alive he enjoyed the suit property as owner, who has acquired the same by virtue of a registered deed of sale bearing No:- 8634 dated 13.08.1990 and after his death his wife being the only legal heir of him inherited and succeeded over the suit property and being the owner of the same and out of love and affection gifted the same to the plaintiff through registered deed of Gift (ext-3) and put him in possession over the same. He has further stated that after receiving the suit property through gift from his Buwa, he got his name mutated before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation Ranchi and according Holding number has been allotted to him and who is regularly paying taxes to the concern department (Ext.6 to 6/b). Apart from holding he has taken electric connection in his name and is paying the electricity charger to the Electricity board in his name (Ext-1 and 1/A). However, the plaintiff has claimed the suit property of his Phupha has acquired the same by virtue of a registered deed of sale bearing No: - 8634 dated 13.08.1990 from the Bihar State Housing Board, the same sale deed has not been exhibited by the plaintiff which is essential document and basis of this suit for title and ownership. The contents of documents and electronic records cannot be proved by oral evidence. The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. According to the provision of law it provided that the contents of the document must be proved by primary or secondary evidence, except in the case as provided in the Act. Hence in order to 2025:JHHC:10161 9 adjudicate any document which is produced by the party has to be proved in the manner provided by the Evidence Act. Section-101. Burden of proof- Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Plaintiff must be proved chain of title of property:- Chain of title is often described as the sequence of historical transfers of title to a property from the current owner all the way back to the original owner. This also applies to land without a home on it. A chain of title should always reflect continuous, unbroken ownership. Chain of title is the sequence of historical transfers of title to a property. It is a valuable tool to identify and document past owners of a property and serves as a property’s historical ownership timeline. The “chain” runs from the present owner back to the original owner of the property. In situations where documentation of ownership is important, it is often necessary to reconstruct the chain of title. Since the plaintiff has not been able to produce documents pertaining to alleged sale effected by his Phupha’s favour, deed of sale bearing no:- 8634 dated 13.08.1990. Further, plaintiff has also not filed the complete chain of the title documents to ascertain as to how the property in question gifted by his Bua through registered deed of Gift (ext-3). In fact, that plaintiff himself has not been able to prove his right, title or interest in the property in question. In a declaratory suit, the question of title as well as other connected issues have to be gone into separately and meticulously and the sale deed which was the basis of the plaintiff’s claim should have been examined in its proper perspective so that to substantiate that the vendor of the sale deed had title to execute the sale deed in favour of the vendee which is the foundation stone of the entire plaint case and chain of title should have been complete. A declaration of title plaintiff is bound to produce all the title deeds which are necessary to trace his title. Declaration cannot be granted unless each link in the chain is complete. Furthermore, in order to establish the claim of the absolute and exclusive ownership, plaintiff is requited to establish complete chain of ownership, which finally culminates in his favour. In the present case it is still a mystery before this Court, that who was the original owner of the suit property? 2025:JHHC:10161 10 The Apex Court has been repeatedly asserting that the Mutation Entries neither confer any title nor are a conclusive proof of ownership. The Courts have clearly spelt out that the mutation entries are important only for collection of revenue/municipal taxes and should not be haloed in a manner to interpret impeccable legal ownership. The Apex Court has recently in the case of Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagra Palike vs Faraulla Khan in SLP (C) No. 5746/2020 on 25 January 2021 reiterated that mutation entries do not by themselves confer title which has to be established independently in a declaratory suit in the competent civil court. It is settled law that a vendor cannot convey a better title in favour of the vendee. (ref. Ram Lal Vs. Phagua (2006) 1 SCC 168; Vishwanath Prasad Vs. Rajendra Prasad AIR 2006 SC 2965). Though this principle of law is subject to certain exceptions provided in the Transfer of Properties Act, however, since plaintiff has not taken plea that his case comes under any of such exceptions, therefore, this court is not required to discuss those exceptions. In that situation the general law prevails and operates even in the present case. In view of these findings. I come to conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled for the declaration that he is absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. Accordingly, Issue No. VI is decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. II, III & IV 9. These issues have been framed on the basis of the pleadings of the defendant. But the defendant has not adduced any evidence on the point of limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, non- joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties of the suit. The defendant has also not raised this issue at the time of argument and this issue is decided accordingly. Issue No.1 10. in view of the issues decided above, it becomes clear that the suit is not maintainable as framed and the plaintiff has no any valid cause of action for this suit. Accordingly, this issue is being decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. VII & VIII 11. After going through the above discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief or reliefs as claimed by him. 13. Thus, the learned trial court recorded that the defendant did not exhibit any document, nor adduced any evidence in support of her 2025:JHHC:10161 11 written statement and decided Issue No. V in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court decided Issue Nos. I, VI, VII and VIII against the plaintiff and decided Issue Nos. II, III and IV against the defendant and dismissed the suit. Arguments on behalf of the appellant 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a petition seeking additional evidence has been placed on record being Interlocutory Application No. 11574 of 2023 filed on 21.12.2023. However, he has submitted that through the additional evidence, the title deed of Manmohan Pandey has been placed on record by way of abundant precaution as it is an admitted fact on record that the title of the suit property was with Manmohan Pandey and such finding has been recorded by the learned trial court. The learned counsel also submitted that the title deed of Manmohan Pandey was not produced before the learned trial court in view of the fact that the defendant in her written statement had never objected to the contention of the plaintiff that Manmohan Pandey is the real owner of the suit property. The learned counsel also submitted that it has been stated in Paragraph- 15 in the interlocutory application that since the plaintiff was not in custody of the Sale Deed dated 13.08.1990 and as such the same was not exhibited before the learned trial court and on account of the admitted position that the property originally belonged to Manmohan Pandey, he did not take any step earlier to take the certified copy. He further submitted that the learned trial court has dismissed the suit only on the ground that the title deed of Manmohan Pandey was not exhibited. The finding of the learned trial court is contrary to its own finding wherein it has been recorded that the property admittedly belonged to Manmohan Pandey. He submitted that the admitted facts need not be proved and for this, he referred to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. The learned counsel submitted that though the defendant has filed her written statement and has referred to numerous documents besides admitting that the suit property belonged to Manmohan Pandey, 2025:JHHC:10161 12 but the defendant neither adduced any oral evidence, nor adduced any documentary evidence before the learned trial court and the suit proceeded only on the evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant did not even appear to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also submitted that a plea was taken by the defendant that the gift deed, on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming to have registered gift deed and on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming the right, title, interest and possession was a forged and fabricated document, however, the said gift deed was never challenged by the defendant, nor any evidence was placed on record. He also submitted that the person who alleges fraud and forgery, the onus is upon that person to prove the forgery and fabrication on the document and otherwise also, such a plea could not have been entertained as the gift deed was not under challenge by the defendant as any prayer to set aside the registered gift was not made by way of any counter claim or by filing a separate suit. The learned counsel has also submitted that the registered document has a presumption with regard to due execution of the sale deed. Arguments on behalf of the respondent 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the specific case of the defendant in her written statement was that she had solemnized marriage with Manmohan Pandey with the consent of Chandra Kala Pandey, the first wife, as Chandra Kala Pandey and Manmohan Pandey did not have any issue and during the lifetime of Manmohan Pandey and Chandra Kala Pandey, the sole defendant started living in the suit premises. Manmohan Pandey died in 1998 and thereafter the sole defendant continued to live with Chandra Kala Pandey who died on 21st May, 2017. The learned counsel submitted that Chandra Kala Pandey expired on 21st May, 2017 and the gift deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 17th April, 2017 and as such, the gift deed was executed immediately prior to the death of Chandra Kala Pandey. The defendant in her written statement has specifically asserted that the gift deed was 2025:JHHC:10161 13 forged and fabricated, but the learned trial court did not frame any issue with regard to legality and validity of the gift deed. 17. He further submitted that the learned trial court ought to have framed this issue and it was for the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the gift deed on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming title over the property. 18. With respect to additional evidence, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no explanation on behalf of the plaintiff for not producing the title deed of Manmohan Pandey during the trial and therefore, the prayer for adducing the additional evidence is not fit to be admitted. He submitted that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to enable the appellate court to take additional evidence are not duly satisfied in the present case and the appellate court can be permitted to take additional evidence, only if the conditions laid down in the rule exists. The learned counsel submitted that the trial court has rightly passed the judgment against the plaintiff on account of non- production of the title deed of Manmohan Pandey. The learned counsel also submitted that the title deed of Manmohan Pandey which has been sought to be exhibited is Deed No. 8734 of 1990 and in the plaint, the deed number was mentioned as 8634 with Serial No. 9279 dated 13.08.1990. 19. The respondent has filed a reply to the Interlocutory Application seeking to adduce additional evidence. However, it is not the case of the respondent that the additional evidence which has been sought to be adduced before this Court is either forged or fabricated. Rejoinder arguments on behalf of the appellant 20. In response, the learned counsel on the behalf of the appellant submitted that the perusal of the additional evidence reveals that the serial number which was mentioned in the plaint is correct and the other details with respect to the property in the name of Manmohan Pandey are evident from the additional evidence itself. The learned counsel reiterated on account of the admitted fact that the property belonged to 2025:JHHC:10161 14 Manmohan Pandey and even in absence of the additional evidence, there is no impediment on the part of the court to decide the case. Point of determination 21. The following points arise for determination in this appeal: - A. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable with valid cause of action? (same as issue no.1 of the trial court) B. Whether Chandra Kala Pandey was entitled to alienate the suit property? (same as issue no V of the trial court) C. Whether the plaintiff has any valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit property? (same as issue no.VI of the trial court) D. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for? (relatable to issue no. VII and VIII of the trial court) Findings of this Court 22. The case of the respective parties as per plaint and written statement has already been mentioned above. 23. This Court finds that in course of trial, the plaintiff produced and examined four witnesses on his behalf. 24. PW-1 Surender Pandey is the identifier in the Gift Deed. He filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows both the parties of the suit and the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant in connection with right, title and interest over the suit property and has described the suit property as per the schedule to the plaint situated at Bariatu Housing Colony, Ranchi. He further stated that the plaintiff’s Fufa namely, Manmohan Pandey had purchased the suit property from Bihar State Housing Board vide Sale Deed No.8634 dated 13.08.1990; Manmohan Pandey died on 28.02.1998 leaving behind him his wife namely, Chandra Kala Pandey as his only heir who became the owner of the disputed property; Chandra Kala Pandey during her lifetime transferred the disputed property to the plaintiff vide a registered Gift Deed No.1875 dated 17.04.2017; the plaintiff used to come and live at the disputed property while Manmohan Pandey and 2025:JHHC:10161 15 Chandra Kala Pandey were alive; as Manmohan Pandey had no issue from Chandra Kala Pandey, Manmohan Pandey had brought and kept the defendant at the disputed property but Manmohan Pandey had not solemnised marriage with the defendant; after death of Chandra Kala Pandey on 21.05.2017, the plaintiff asked the defendant on 22.07.2017 to vacate the disputed property and initially the defendant agreed to vacate and took time till January, 2018, but when the plaintiff again asked the defendant to vacate the disputed property in February, 2018, she refused and laid her claim over the disputed property; the defendant was not a married wife Manmohan Pandey and therefore, the claim of the defendant over the disputed property is false and baseless, as she is not a heir of Manmohan Pandey in any way. 25. 25. PW-2 Satyendra Tiwary and PW-3 Vinay Kumar Tiwary in their examinations-in-chief stated the same facts more or less as stated by PW-1. In addition, PW-2 stated that the plaintiff has taken electricity connection in his name and he used to pay the electricity bill. He exhibited the electricity bills as Exhibits-P1 and P1/a. He further added that the name of the defendant was not mentioned in the Ration Card and identified the photocopy of the Ration Card as Mark-X. 26. PW-3 is the plaintiff himself. In addition to the facts stated by PW-1, PW-3 further stated that after death of Manmohan Pandey, Chandra Kala Pandey became the sole owner and possessor of the suit property; Manmohan Pandey had never given the status of wife to the defendant, which is apparent from the Pension Book of Manmohan Pandey [Exhibit-P2]; Chandrakala Pandey has transferred the suit property to the plaintiff vide a registered Gift Deed No. 1875, Book No.1, Volume No. 197, Page Nos. 561 to 612, dated 17.04.2017[Exhibit-P3] and thereafter, the plaintiff had taken electricity connection and had obtained holding from Ranchi Municipal Corporation and identified the photocopy of Holding Receipt No. SAF- 03/008/7057 as Mark-X/1 and photocopy of death certificate of Chandra Kala Pandey as Mark-X/2. He also stated that Chandra Kala Pandey had filed Title Suit No.1907/2016 in Civil Court Gopalganj 2025:JHHC:10161 16 against the defendant and Nandan Pandey and exhibited the certified copy of the plaint of Title Suit No.1907/2016 as Exhibit-P4. 27. PW-4 Bhajo Hari Mahto is a formal witness. He exhibited the Family Members Certificate No.15 dated 20.03.2017 issued by the Circle Officer, Baragai, Ranchi in the name of Chandra Kala Pandey as Exhibit-P5 and the Holding Receipts issued in the name of the plaintiff as Exhibits- P6, P6/a and P6/b. He was cross-examined by the learned trial court. As per the trial court’s judgment, none appeared on behalf of the defendant to cross-examine PW-4 and therefore, he was discharged. 28. Accordingly, the plaintiff exhibited the following documents in support of his case: Exhibit- P1 & P1/a Electricity bills Exhibit- P2 Pension Book of Manmohan Pandey Exhibit- P3 Gift Deed No. 1875 dated 17.04.2017 Exhibit- P4 Certified copy of plaint of Title Suit No.1907/2016 Exhibit- P5 Family Members Certificate dated 20.03.2017 Exhibits-P6, P6/a & P6/b Holding Receipts Mark-X Photocopy of Ration Card Mark-X/1 Photocopy of Holding Receipt No. SAF- 03/008/7057 Mark-X/2 Photocopy of death certificate of Chandra Kala Pandey 29. This Court finds that admittedly the defendant after filing the written statement did not cross-examine any of the witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff including the plaintiff himself who was examined as PW-3, nor the sole defendant led any evidence either oral or documentary. Thus, the entire evidence on behalf of the plaintiff remained intact and uncontroverted. This court also finds that the evidence of the plaintiff is in consonance with the case made out in the plaint. 2025:JHHC:10161 17 30. This Court further finds that the defendant in her written statement had alleged that the registered deed of gift was a forged and fabricated document and accordingly, the defendant had disputed the title of the plaintiff on that basis. However, the registered deed of gift was not challenged by the defendant in any proceeding and in the present proceeding also, neither counter-claim, nor any cross suit challenging the registered gift deed has been filed. This Court further finds that since the registered gift deed was never under challenge by any cross suit or by any counter-claim, the learned trial court rightly did not frame any issue with regard to legality and validity of the gift deed. 31. The plaint and the written statement reveal the admitted facts on record: - a. that the suit property stood in the name of Manmohan Pandey; b. Chandra Kala Pandey was the wife of Manmohan Pandey; c. Chandra Kala Pandey and Manmohan Pandey had no child born out of wed-lock. d. It was the specific case of the defendant in her written statement that during the lifetime of Chandra Kala Pandey, Manmohan Pandey had married the defendant and she acquired the status of 2nd wife of Manmohan Pandey and Chandra Kala Pandey as well as the defendant started living with Manmohan Pandey in the property. e. Manmohan Pandey died in the year 1998 and Chandra Kala Pandey died on 21.05.2017. f. Manmohan Pandey was the phupha(uncle) of the plaintiff. g. The plaintiff claimed the suit property by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 17th April, 2017 [Exhibit-P3] executed by Chandra Kala Pandey after death of Manmohan Pandey in the name of the plaintiff. 32. This Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly recorded some of the admitted facts in Paragraph-8 of the impugned judgement and one of such fact was that Manmohan Pandey was the person who has purchased the suit property. 2025:JHHC:10161 18 33. This Court further finds that the learned trial court while considering the claim of the plaintiff with regard to chain of title has observed that the title deed of Manmohan Pandey was not exhibited and thereby ignored the fact that the title of Manmohan Pandey with respect to the suit property is an undisputed fact on record and the learned trial court itself has already taken note of the same in Paragraph-8 while enumerating the admitted facts on record. 34. This Court finds that it was the specific case of the defendant in her written statement that she was married with Manmohan Pandey during the life time of Chandra Kala Pandey and therefore, by virtue of such status by no stretch of imagination, the defendant acquired the status of wife of Manmohan Pandey. However, the fact remains that the defendant did not appear before the learned trial court to depose on her status with respect to Manmohan Pandey, so that she could have been subjected to cross-examine on various aspects of her relationship with Manmohan Pandey. 35. Although the defendant claimed that Manmohan Pandey had given her the status of his wife in various documents like Aadhar, Voter id, L.P.G. Connection showing that the defendant was his wife but admittedly no evidence was lead from the side of the defendant and the defendant did not adduce any evidence consequently, the records of the case reveal that neither the solemnization of second marriage with the defendant during the lifetime of Chandra Kala Pandey has been proved nor any document has been exhibited as claimed by the defendant in the written statement to substantiate the case of the defendant that the defendant was given the status of wife by Manmohan Pandey in various documents like Aadhar Card, Voter id, L.P.G. connection, Bank Account etc. 36. This Court finds that though written statement was filed on behalf of the sole defendant claiming herself to be the second wife of Manmohan Pandey and also claiming that marriage was solemnized by Manmohan Pandey with her during the lifetime of the first wife namely Chandra Kala Pandey, but apart from filing the written statement the 2025:JHHC:10161 19 sole defendant neither cross examined any of the witnesses nor led any evidence in support of her aforesaid claim. The witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were not even cross examined by the sole defendant and accordingly, the evidence of P.W.-3 [the Plaintiff] that marriage was never solemnized by Manmohan Pandey with the defendant remained uncontroverted. The status of defendant as 2nd wife of Manmohan Pandey as asserted by the defendant was never proved by the defendant and the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant lived in the house of Manmohan Pandey during the life time of his wife, namely, Chandra Kala Pandey without solemnizing marriage with Manmohan Pandey, remained uncontroverted. Otherwise also under the Hindu Law, second marriage during the life time of first wife has no legal sanction. Admittedly, Manmohan Pandey died leaving behind his widow Chandra Kala Pandey who was the sole legal heir and successor of Manmohan Pandey. In the aforesaid circumstances, the suit property devolved upon Chandra Kala Pandey and therefore this Court is of the considered view that after death of Manmohan Pandey, Chandra Kala Pandey had the right to alienate the suit property. 37. So far as the argument of the respondent with regard to legality and validity of the gift deed is concerned, it was her specific case in her written statement that the gift deed is a forged and fabricated document and therefore, it was for her to adduce evidence and take steps and also to challenge the gift deed which is a registered document and in absence of such challenge to the gift deed by cross suit or by counter claim, the learned trial court has rightly not framed any issue on the claims of the respondent and has rightly not recorded any finding on the same. 38. 38. This Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly decided the issue No. V in favour of the plaintiff and has accordingly, rightly held that Chandra Kala Pandey the first wife was entitled to alienate the suit property after the death of Manmohan Pandey and the finding of the learned trial court with respect to issue No. V does not call for any interference. 2025:JHHC:10161 20 39. The point of determination no. (B) correspondent to issue no (V) as framed by the learned trial court is decided in favour of the appellant and against the defendant. 40. So far as the point of determination no. (C) correspondent to issue no. (VI) of the learned trial court is concerned, this Court finds that the execution of registered gift deed by Chandra Kala Pandey in favour of the plaintiff is an admitted fact on record and the registered gift deed has also been exhibited as Exhibit-P3. Although, the defendant in the written statement has challenged the legality and validity of the gift deed and has alleged fraud etc. but has neither lead any evidence nor has filed any cross-suit or counter-claim challenging the legality and validity of the registered gift deed. This Court is of the considered view that there is legal presumption in connection with execution of a registered document, the gift deed in the present case. Having held that Chandra Kala Pandey had the right to alienate the property after death of Manmohan Pandey, the registered gift deed executed by Chandra Kala Pandey in favour of the plaintiff, having not been specifically challenged by filing cross suit or cross objection, stood duly proved from the side of the plaintiff. Further, the defendant neither produced any evidence nor cross examined any of the witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff. This Court also finds that the ownership of the suit property of Manmohan Pandey who acquired the same from housing board vide registered sale deed dated 13.08.1990 stood admitted by both the parties and this Court is of the considered view that admitted facts need not be proved. It is also important to note that in Exhibit-P3, which is a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff executed by Chandra Kala Pandey after death of her husband Manmohan Pandey, the details of the registered deed of the year 1990 executed by housing board in favour of Manmohan Pandey, by virtue of which Manmohan Pandey acquired right, title, interest and possession with respect to the suit property has also been mentioned in the recital of the gift deed . 2025:JHHC:10161 21 41. The learned trial court while considering the Issue No. VI has observed that since the plaintiff has not been able to produce document pertaining to the alleged sale effected in his Fufa’s favour i.e. in favour of Manmohan Pandey i.e. sale deed bearing No. 8634 dated 13.08.1990, the chain of title was not completed. This Court is of the view that the law is well settled that the admitted fact need not be proved. In the present case, the fact pleaded by the plaintiff that the property belonged to Manmohan Pandey was neither disputed in the written statement, nor at any stage by the defendant and it is not in dispute even at the first appellate stage. This Court is of the view that in such circumstances, non-production of the sale deed dated 13.08.1990 executed in the name of Manmohan Pandey was not fatal to the suit and the claim of the plaintiff, rather the learned trial court has committed gross illegality by refusing to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff on account of non- production of the sale deed dated 13.08.1990. The sale deed dated 13.08.1990 has been produced at this appellate stage by way of additional evidence, but on account of the admitted fact on record that the property belonged to Manmohan Pandey, this Court does not find it necessary to allow the additional evidence. This Court has no difficulty in pronouncing the judgement on the basis of materials already available on record. 42. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that non-production of the registered deed executed by housing board in favour of Manmohan Pandey was not fatal to the suit and the learned trial court has erred in law while deciding issue No. VI against the plaintiff on the ground that the chain of title was not complete as the deed in favour of Manmohan Pandey was not exhibited. 43. This Court is also of the considered view that the findings of the learned trial court with regard to issue No. V and issue No. VI is conflicting in view of the fact that while deciding issue No. V, the learned trial court held that Chandra Kala Pandey was entitled to alienate the suit property and simultaneously while deciding the issue No. VI the learned trial court held that the plaintiff, in whose favour 2025:JHHC:10161 22 Chandra Kala Pandey had executed the registered gift deed (Exhibit- P3) has held that the plaintiff did not acquire valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit property as the plaintiff had not produced the registered deed executed in favour of Manmohan Pandey husband of Chandra Kala Pandey from the housing board. This Court is of the considered view that once finding was recorded with regards to holding that Chandra Kala Pandey had the right to alienate the suit property, there was no occasion to hold that the plaintiff did not acquire any title over the suit property by virtue of registered gift deed executed by Chandra Kala Pandey in her favour merely because the plaintiff did not exhibit the registered deed executed by housing board in favour of Manmohan Pandey (deceased husband of Chandra Kala Pandey). Considering the totality of admitted facts on record, and the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the materials placed on record, the findings recorded by the learned trial court with regard to issue No. VI cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 44. Consequently, the point of determination no (C) correspondent to issue no VI of the learned trial court is decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant-respondent. 45. The plaintiff has pleaded and proved that after death of Manmohan Pandey, his wife Chandra Kala Pandey during her lifetime transferred the disputed property to the plaintiff vide a registered Gift Deed No.1875 dated 17.04.2017 and got the holding number and electricity in his name. After death of Chandra Kala Pandey on 21.05.2017, the plaintiff asked the defendant on 22.07.2017 to vacate the disputed property and initially the defendant agreed to vacate and took time till January, 2018, but when the plaintiff again asked the defendant to vacate the disputed property in February, 2018, she refused and laid her claim over the disputed property. This Court finds that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action to file the suit against the defendant as pleaded and proved. 2025:JHHC:10161 23 46. Consequently, the point of determination no. (A) correspondent to issue no. I of the learned trial court is decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant-respondent. 47. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the plaintiff- appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the plaint and accordingly, the point of determination no. (D) [correspondent to issue no. VII and VIII of the learned trial court] is decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant-respondent. 48. No arguments have been advanced with regards to issue no. II, III, IV which has been decided by the learned trial court in favour of the appellant and accordingly, the same do not call for any interference. 49. Thus, all the points of determination are decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the sole defendant-respondent and consequently, the impugned judgment, so far as it relates to Issue Nos. I, VI, VII and VIII as decided by the learned trial court are set aside and the findings with regard to Issue Nos. V as decided by the learned trial court is upheld and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the suit. 50. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and this first appeal is allowed. 51. There shall be no order as to costs. 52. The office is to prepare decree accordingly. 53. Pending I.A. is closed. 54. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court through “Fax/E-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-