Dismissed

Asif Aasnain v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2022SA/453/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Second Appeal regarding a dismissed title suit for recovery of possession, the High Court held that the appeal deserves dismissal at the admission stage. The Court found no infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent findings due to non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of evidence to prove the reversion of land upon extinction of the Association.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage as concurrent findings of fact exist and no substantial question of law arises.

Asif Aasnain Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 453 of 2018

¶4

Asif Aasnain

¶5

Tausif Alam

¶6

Suhail @ Sushail Akhtar

¶7

Tufail Sarwar 5. Sultan Zuber

¶8

Irfan Ozair

¶9

Numan Manzar

¶10

Nayar Azar

¶11

Umar Farooque

¶12

Salamual Haque

¶13

Aisa Khatoon

¶14

Khadija Khatoon

¶15

Reyaz Anwar Pasha

¶16

Hssan Akhtar

¶17

Tanveer Arif … … Appellants

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶20

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti.

¶21

Block Development Officer, Khunti

¶22

Pradeep Bhagat

¶23

Shakila Khatoon … … Respondents ------

¶24

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶25

-----For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, Advocate For the Resp-State : AC to GA

¶26

¶27

5/ 03.11.2022 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as also learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶28

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.2.2018 and decree signed on 8.3.2018, passed by learned Addl. District Judge-I, Khunti, dismissing the Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 113 of 2007 and upholding and affirming the judgment dated 1.8.2007 and decree signed on 8.8.2007, passed by the learned Munsif, Khunti, in Title Suit No. 1 of 2002, whereby suit of plaintiffs has been dismissed on contest.

¶29

The plaintiffs-appellants have preferred this Second Appeal challenging the orders passed by the learned Courts below.

¶30

The suit was preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of possession of the suit land more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, as their ancestors-in-interest have got the right, title and interest over the lands for the last 60-70 years. The suit was also filed for temporary injunction restraining the official defendants from doing any

¶31

¶32

kind of construction over the land in question on the basis of gift deed dated 22.11.1933 and registered sale deed dated 24.11.1944 in favour of Khunti Association or Khunti Club. After examining the evidence both documentary and oral, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, which was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that both the Courts below erroneously held that Khunti Association and Khunti Club are same and one entity without taking into consideration that Khunti Association was extinguished 30-35 years back and the alleged Khunti Club came into existence in the year 2000, whereas, the alleged gift deed is dated 22.11.1933. Learned counsel further submits that learned Courts below have misconstrued the gift deed dated 22.11.1933 executed in favour of Khunti Association, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that if the Association is extinguished, the gifted land would be reverted back in favour of the raiyats i.e. the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submits that now Khunti Association is not in existence and as such, the possession over the lands belonging to the ancestor-ininterest of the plaintiffs shall prevail to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are bad in law and fit to be set aside.

¶34

Be that as it may, having heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and having gone through the judgements passed by the Courts below, this Court finds that both the Courts below have come to the finding that the plaintiffs have not brought on record any iota of evidence regarding the factum that Khunti Association or Khunti Club are two different associations and upon extinction of Khunti Association, the lands in question will revert back upon the legal heirs of the ancestors-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Though the plaintiffsappellants have come to know about the gift deed dated 22.11.1933 and registered sale deed dated 24.11.1944 in the year 2001, but even thereafter they did not claim any relief regarding cancellation of such registered documents. Even from the ocular evidence from the plaintiff’s witnesses, none had deposed anything regarding the registered sale deed dated 26.11.1944 to be a forged document. The plaintiffs knowing fully have not made party to Khunti Association or Khunti Club. Thus the suit

¶35

¶36

is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the suit preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court below. Hence, there is no illegality or any infirmity in the orders / judgments passed by the learned Courts below.

¶37

Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself, as it is a case of concurrent finding and no substantial questions of law is involved.

¶38

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶39

R.Kr.

Asif Aasnain v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Aasnain v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Nimai Ruj And Ors. Vs Union Of India Through General Manager Eastern Railway

Rakhal Mahato Vs Kisto Mahato and Ors.

Arbind Mandal Vs Satish Mandal and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary And Anr.

Sunil Kumar Pandey Vs Asha Pandey

Lavkush Gupta And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary Home Jail And Disaster Management And Ors.