There will be a Full Court Reference on March 26, 2026, in the Centenary Hall of Patna High Court to condole the sad demise of Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate along with Dr. Indira Lakshmi, Randhir Kumar Singh, Ras Bihari Thakur, Gajendra Prasad Yadav, Braj Nandan Singh, and Ravineshwar Dayal @ Ravi, Advocates of the Court.
On March 18, 2026, in one of his last appearances, Raghib Ahsan argued in Sk. Md. Nasim @ Md. Nasim & Ors. vs Sk. Saghir Alam (2026) before Justice Khatim Reza of the High Court. He was assisted by Wasi Akhtar counsel for the appellants. This Second Appeal was filed by the defendant/appellants against the judgment and decree of affirmance. Title Suit No. 196 of 1989/156 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration of his right, title and possession over the suit land and the defendants had got no concern on the suit land and also for recovery of possession if the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed by the Munsif-1, Gopalganj by the judgment and decree dated August 31, 2006, against which, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 167 of 2006, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge-VIII, Gopalganj by its judgment and decree dated September 27, 2016, which was under challenged in the instant Second Appeal.
Both the courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, came to a definite conclusion that on the basis of registered gift deed dated May 19, 1979, the right, title and possession of the plaintiff was proved by the valid documents, such as registered deed of gift, Mutation order as well as rent receipts. It appeared from the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which was final court of facts, the First Appellate Court after considering each and every issued framed by the trial court and came to a separate and independent finding. The First Appellate Court clearly observed that from Paragraph no. 31 of the written statement, it appeared that they clearly stated that their father Abdul Rahman wanted to divide his property in between his two sons i.e. the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, but on going through documentary evidence as available on records, it was found that said Abhul Rahman executed deed of gift in respect to the suit land in favour of the plaintiff voluntarily which is evident from other documentary evidence. Notably, certified copy of Ekrarnama dated September 4, 1984 executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in favour of Sk. Saghir Alam (plaintiff). Mutation Case No. 798 of 1985-86 filed between Sk. Saghir Alam (plaintiff) Vs. Sk. Abdul Rahman and certified copy of Mutation Order passed in the aforesaid mutation case in favour of the plaintiff have also clarified that the registered deed of gift dated May 19, 1979 was correct, legal and valid documents and the same was also supported by the reports of the Fingerprint Expert. The First Appellate Court after perusing the oral and documentary evidence held that the deed of cancellation dated August 30, 1979 was forged and fabricated. The trial court rightly and correctly decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
On scrutinising the oral as well as documentary evidence, it was also held that the alleged cancellation deed dated August 30, 1979 were all forged, fabricated and void documents. The suit was not barred by law of limitation and the suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff against the defendants/appellants was maintainable. The First Appellate Court found no infirmities in the judgment of the the trial court. So far as the point that the First Appellate Court failed to formulate points of determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') was concerned, it was apparent from the judgment of the First Appellate Court that it had considered all the issues framed by the trial court independently and cited reasons for recording decision. There was no doubt that it was desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, but if it was possible to make out from the judgment that there was substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice had not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient. Where the appellate court considered the entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, came to any conclusion that its findings were supported by reasons even though the point was not framed by the appellate court, there was substantial compliance with the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and the judgment was not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of determination. The aforesaid view was taken by the Supreme Court in G. Amalorpavam & Ors. Vs. R.C. Diocese.
In the case, the appellate court had considered all the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties and considered the issues as framed by the learned trial court separately and given its findings independently. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Abdul Rahman had executed deed of gift in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff followed by delivery of possession and the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records through due process of law. The said registered deed of gift was challenged by the defendants in any competent Civil Court.
The Registrar or Sub-Registrar had no jurisdiction to cancel the registered Gift Deed or Sale Deed. Moreover, the First Appellate Court held that the cancellation deed dated August 30, 1979, A sale deed dated October 13, 1984 executed by Md. Muslim in favour of Sk. Rahman; sale deed dated October 12, 1984 executed by Sk. Rahman in favour of Sk. Md. Yasin and deed of gift dated October 12, 1984 executed by Abdul Rahman in favour of Sk. Md. Nasim were forged fabricated and void documents on the basis of material oral as well as documentary evidences.
Justice Reza concluded: "7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record, it is quite apparent that the judgment and decree of the courts below are covered by the findings of facts and no question of law much less substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the instant Second Appeal.8. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of Admission under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
As to Dr. Indira Lakshmi (65), the woman lawyer practicing at the High Court and and Civil Court, her partially-burnt body was found at her residence in Rajendra Nagar locality under Kadam Kuan police station area of Patna, Bihar on February 11, 2026. She was found dead under mysterious circumstances at her residence. Her body was recovered from the two-storey house located on Rajendra Nagar Road No. 2. The lady advocate used to live alone in the house as her husband, Amarendra Kumar, resides in Ranchi, Jharkhand, while her daughter lives in Bengaluru. The tenants residing in the building noticed the partially burnt body inside the house on the morning of February 11. They informed the police. It is not clear as to whether the death was accidental or the result of a planned crime. The body was sent to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) for post-mortem examination, which was conducted in the presence of family members. The lawyers’ associationdemanded a thorough probe into this case. The caretaker reported that Lakshmi was sitting in the verandah until midnight. She had returned to Patna on February 1 after visiting her husband in Ranchi. She had not been going to court after that. It is not clear as to why had she stopped going to the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment