Second appeal filed by a deity against the dismissal of a title suit due to lack of proof of endowment. The High Court held that there is no substantial question of law as the plaintiff failed to plead or prove the endowment of the land.
Appeal dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Second Appeal No. 164 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.164 of 2010
(Against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.07.2010 passed by the District Judge-Lohardaga in Title Appeal No.16 of 2009)
Sri Sri 108 Sri Mahabir Jee Mandir, represented through Sewait Gopal Ram, son of late Ram Lal Ram, resident of Upper Bazar, P.O. / P.S./ .... .... …. District-Lohardaga Appellant
Sl. No.1 to 5 all sons of late Maru Ansari
... .... …. Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 09.07.2010 passed by the District Judge-Lohardaga in Title Appeal No.16 of 2009 whereby and whereunder, the learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
suit has been filed through its Sewait . It is the case of the plaintiff that the
1
Second Appeal No. 164 of 2010
suit property was recorded in the name of seven persons, one of them is the ancestor of the Sewait . Out of the seven recorded persons, five persons executed a registered deed of surrender in the year 1940 in favour of exlandlord and in-spite of the deed of surrender, since it was not executed by all the recorded raiyats , the land was never treated to be surrendered. The ex-landlord never came in possession of the suit land and the land all along remained in the possession of the Sewait of the plaintiff through whom the suit has been filed and the deed was never acted upon. Before vesting of the Zamindari , the ex-landlord has created a trust of his Zamindari interest which was known as “Thakurain Chinta Mani Trust” in the year 1948. At the time of vesting of Zamindari the land was not found or treated as Bakast and no K-form was filed by the then ex-landlord as Bakast and no M-form was prepared in the name of ex-landlord. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the name of Sewait through whom the plaintiff has filed the suit was entered in the Register-II and rent receipt was also issued in the name of Chimni Devi. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the Sewait through whom the suit has been filed by the plaintiff built the temple of Mahabirjee over a portion of the suit land dug a well for puja purposes and the entire land has been given to the temple of Mahabirjee and the father of the Sewait through whom the suit has been filed became the Sewait and after his death, the plaintiff is the Sewait and looking after the management of the temple. On 09.10.1997, the plaintiff wanted to make some construction during the Durga Puja but the defendants obstructed the same claiming that they have purchased the land from the Thakurain Chinta Mani Trust in the year 1965. It is claimed
2
Second Appeal No. 164 of 2010
by the plaintiff that the ex-landlord who has allegedly executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants was not having any right, title and interest to execute any sale deed and the sale deed of the defendants is a forged, fabricated, null and void document and never acted upon. Hence, it is not binding upon the plaintiff.
3
Second Appeal No. 164 of 2010
being dealt with by the first appellate court in paragraph no.10 of the impugned judgment has been mentioned as issue no. iv is the main issue which is as follows:-
IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration of his right, title upon the suit land?
The learned trial court decided the issue against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on contest with costs.
4
Second Appeal No. 164 of 2010
the entry in the Register-II stands recorded in the name of Sewait through whom the suit has been filed but he fairly submits that no specific date of endowment or the manner in which the endowment was made has been pleaded by the plaintiff.
As rightly considered by the learned trial court for establishing the title of the deity over the suit land, the endowment is a sine-qua-non and there is specific finding of fact by the first appellate court that there is neither pleading nor there is evidence to that effect. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs.
forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd January, 2019 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff-deity is entitled to a declaration of title over the suit land in the absence of pleading and evidence regarding endowment?
Sri Sri 108 Sri Mahabir Jee Mandir
Zamil Ansari
Tahir Ansari
Gaffur Ansari
Nesar Ansari
Istiaque Ansari
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court