Cpc, 1908

Guest (Querist) 04 March 2013 This query is : Resolved
Radhe shyam gupta filed the suit for the recovery on jan.10 , 1999 against Lal Bihari of the amount 2 lakh as sale price of the house which is in dispute situated in Ranchi. Radhe shyam also produced document dated September 1, 1998 the house in question of which he was the owner was transferred to lal bihari which the lal bihari had promised to pay but he did not pay the amount and continued to remain in possession which he should have surrendered for having not paid the said amount.The suit was contested by the lal bihari on ground that he was the tenant under radhe shyam and was already in possession. He also pleaded that document dated sept.1 ,1998 was obtained by fraud and hence void under ICA(contract act) ,1872 as well.
The suit was dismissed by the trial court judge senior div, ranchi in jan.2001 on the finding that the house in question was at no stage sold by radhe shyam to lal bihari and consequently he was not entitled to recover the said amount from lal bihari as sale price as document in question was only an agreement for sale and not a sale-deed that the agreement was without consideration and was hit by the provisions of ICA,1872. This judgment of trial court was upheld by learned district judge, ranchi in an appeal by radhe shyam gupta. The lower appellate court also specifically reversed the trial court finding and held that lal bihari had failed to prove him to be tenant under the disputed land. These legal procedding terminated at that stage.
Radhe shyam however initiated new proceeding against lal bihari on the basis of the title. He pleaded that he was the owner of the land in question and Lal bihari who had already been held in the earlier suit that he was not the tenant on the disputed land in suit, was not entitled to retain possession. Whereas Lal Bihari claimed that the suit is barred by o.2 r.2 and barred by the time as well since he was in possession over the house in question for longer time of more than 12 years and had become owner of the land in suit by adverse possession.
The Trial Court namely Civil Judge Senior Division Ranchi, dismissed the suit by judgment in april,2005 with the finding that the suit was barred by 0.2 r.2. and was beyond time. In appeal, decided by Dist. Judge, Ranchi in mar, 2007 the findings recorded by trial court were reversed and the suit was decreed by stating it was not barred by o.2. r.2 nor was it beyond time. The Lal Bihari then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Ranchi which got dismissed in 2012, so the matter is before the Supreme Court Now.

Please suggest arguments on behalf of the appellant in SC i.e. lal bihari?

Follow Query

Report Abuse