Dismissed

Jageshwar Prajapati and Anr. v. Ram Lagan Prajapati and Ors.

Jharkhand HC23 Jul 2019SA/280/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This title appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds. The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a customary right to inherit dar raiyati land, upholding the concurrent findings of lower courts and dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed upholding the judgment and decree of lower courts.

Jageshwar Prajapati and Anr. Vs Ram Lagan Prajapati and Ors. — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No. 280 of 2015

¶3

.......

¶4

1. Jageshwar Prajapati 2. Nageshwar Prajapati…. ............... Appellants. -Versus-

¶5

1. Ram Lagan Prajapati 2. Puranmal Prajapati 3. Dinesh Prajapati 4. Suresh Prajapati 5. Naresh Prajapati 6. Mahendra Prajapati 7. Rabindra Prajapati 8. Indradeo Oraon 9. Shyamlal Oraon 10. Durga Oraon 11. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar. ….. …. Respondents.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶7

For the Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents :

¶8

09/23.07.2019: Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the

¶9

record.

¶10

This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed challenging the judgment dated 26.3.2015 and decree dated 8.4.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Latehar in Title Appeal No. 15/2012, by which, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment dated 31.7.2012 and the decree dated 9.8.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division 2^nd Latehar, in Title Suit No. 19/2009 was confirmed.

¶11

The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before this Court, have filed title suit being Title Suit No. 19/2009 praying therein for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land. It had also been prayed that the registered sale deed No. 327 dated 21.2.2009 and sale deed Nos . 530 and 531 dated 21.3.2009 in respect of the suit land, executed by the defendants, be cancelled. The plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants injuncting them for alienating the suit land.

¶12

The plaintiffs claimed that they were the raiyats of the defendants and they are possessing the land in question and cultivating the same since long. It is further case that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were the raiyats and as per the custom of the village, heirs of the raiyats will inherit the property. Raiyati right, as per them, is heritable and accordingly the plaintiffs are possessing the land and cultivating the same. It is further case that the plaintiffs had obtained equal right to that of the defendants and they have prayed for mutating the land in their favour. They further claimed that the defendants, under whom the

¶13

ancestors of the plaintiffs were the dar raiyats (under raiyats) sold the land by virtue of three sale deeds one being Sale Deed No. 327 dated 21.2.2009 and others two are Sale Deeds Nos. 530 and 531 dated 21.3.2009. These sale is the cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit.

¶14

The defendants appeared and contested the suit. Their case is that the ancestor of the plaintiffs were the dar raiyats (under raiyat) and there is no custom in the village that the right of dar raiyat is heritable. Their further case is that the plaintiffs have never inherited the land in question and therefore the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit land.

¶15

The trial court framed four issues and thereafter gave a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had any right to inherit the property in question. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs have not proved any custom of the village as pleaded by them, thus the suit was dismissed. The appellate court concurring with the findings of the trial court dismissed the appeal, resulting the filing of the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶16

From pleadings of the parties, I find that the main contention of the plaintiffs is that they had inherited the property as a raiyat. The further claim of the plaintiffs is that the interest of dar raiyati is heritable and thus they were possessing the land having equal right to that of the defendants and the defendants cannot sell the property in question.

¶17

Admittedly, the right of an under raiyat is not heritable, but if there is custom in the village, the exception to rule can be considered. Thus, the custom as pleaded has to be proved.

¶18

In this case, the trial court while discussing the findings, found that save and except oral evidence, to that effect by only one person, there is nothing on record which suggests the right to inherit the dar raiyati, is heritable. The trial court while discussing the evidences of the plaintiffs has also held that there is only one witness in his case who has stated about the said custom of the village but there is no other villagers who came forward to say about the same. It was further held that though in the said village witnesses said that there were other persons who inherited such rights, but surprisingly, no one who inherited the said right, has come forward to depose in favour of the plaintiff. Even P.W. 5 has stated that he does not now about the dar raiyati custom. P.W. 3 has also stated that the disputed land is being cultivated by the plaintiffs from 8-10 years and this evidence was also considered by the trial court. Further the trial court after going through the certified copy of Khatiyan has held that the same does not show any heritable raiyati right of under raiyat, as there is no remarks in the last column of Khatiyan to that effect. Ultimately, the trial court has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the customary right and thus dismissed the suit.

¶19

The appellate court independently considered the pleadings of the parties, evidence and the judgment of the trial court and has concurred with the finding of the trial court that it has rightly gave a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove any customary right and thus the plaintiffs have not inherited any right over the suit land.

¶20

The question as to whether the plaintiffs have inherited the right is a pure question of fact and whether there was any customary right in the village, the same has to be proved. A custom has to be pleaded and proved. In this case, though the plaintiffs have pleaded that the right of an under raiyat is heritable, but have failed to prove the same by cogent evidence. Both the courts gave concurrent finding on this point.

¶21

In view of concurrent findings of fact given by the courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the right of inheritance on the property, this Court sitting in jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot interfere the question of fact, which has already been concurrently decided by both the courts below. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶22

Anu/C.P.2

Jageshwar Prajapati and Anr. v. Ram Lagan Prajapati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jageshwar Prajapati and Anr. v. Ram Lagan Prajapati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Sao And Anr. Vs Kunal Chakraborty

Beni Madhav Mishra Vs Smt Chandrawati Devi and Ors.

Lalit Saraogi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through D C Seraikella Kharsawan and Anr.

salim raza and Ors. Vs Mohan Mistry And Ors.

Shakuntala Devi Jain And Ors. Vs Shantilal Jain And Anr.

Smt Sumitra Devi Vs Mr Mahendra Mistry and Anr.