Dismissed

1b Nand Lal Pal v. Chhaku Bala Dasi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Mar 2022WPC/4661/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged three lower court orders in a succession and title revision dispute. The Court declined to interfere, noting no evidence was placed to disprove the finding that Bhujo Pal was Fulchand Pal's son. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed for lack of evidence to contradict the lower courts' finding on the relationship of the parties.

1b Nand Lal Pal Vs Chhaku Bala Dasi And Ors. — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]

¶2

W.P.(C ) No. 4661 of 2006

¶3

Ahilya Devi & Ors.

¶4

.... .. ... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chhaku Bala Dasi & Ors. .. ... ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate For the respondents : None

¶9

15/ 07.03.2022 .

¶10

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.C. Mishra.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 28.03.2006, passed by the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Title Revision No.22 of 1985, which has been preferred against the order dated 09.07.1985 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dumka in Title Appeal No.9 of 1983 whereby the order dated 04.10.1983, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka in Title Partition Suit No.45 of 1979 has been affirmed, as such, petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition against all three orders/judgments passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, Settlement Officer, Dumka as well as Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.C. Mishra has submitted that there is no finding with regard to fact that Bhujo Pal was son of Fulchand Pal one of the son of Kunjo Pal, as such, finding recorded by the courts below are bad in law and all three orders may be set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.C. Mishra has submitted that since the Bhujo Pal is not the son of Fulchand Pal, as such, impugned order passed by the courts below are bad in law as the name of Bhujo Pal is not mentioned in the voter list of the Village.

¶14

Considering the submission of the petitioners, looking into the judgments passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, Settlement Officer, Dumka as well as Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka whereby they have given concurrent finding, this Court cannot interfere with such finding. The courts below have already held that nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners, who were defendants before the courts below, appellants before the Settlement Officer and petitioners before the Revisional Court on

¶15

-2-

¶16

record to disbelieve that Bhujo Pal was son of Fulchand Pal accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶17

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶18

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶19

R.S.

1b Nand Lal Pal v. Chhaku Bala Dasi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1b Nand Lal Pal v. Chhaku Bala Dasi And Ors.

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

Chandan Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Sri Ram Stones and Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Roshan Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Cum Commissioner Department of Water Resources

Satsang through Kartik Chandra Sarkar Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board

Ramjit Mehta And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jaymani Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Town Development Department

Castron Technologies Ltd. through One of Its Directors Ashok Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary