Dismissed

Smt Prabhawati Lal and Ors. v. Deshbandhu Gupta and Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2023SA/207/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second appeal challenging the dismissal of a title suit and the affirmation of a lower appellate decree. The High Court upheld the lower courts' dismissal, finding that issues were properly framed and decided, and no interference was required due to concurrent findings.

What did the court decide?

Instance was dismissed; no relief extended to the appellants.

Smt Prabhawati Lal and Ors. Vs Deshbandhu Gupta and Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 207 of 2014

¶4

Smt Prabhawati Lal, wife of Thakur Brajkrishore

¶5

Ashish Ranjan Lal

¶6

Harish Ranjan Lal

¶7

No. 2 and 3 are sons of Late Thakur Braj Kishore Lal

¶8

All are residents of village-Hatma, Post office and Police Station-Lalpur Town, District-Ranchi …… Appellants

¶9

…… Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Deshbandhu Gupta, son of late Mathura Prasad, Resident of C/O, R.P. Jaiswal Advocate, Kali Babu Street, Post Office- G.P.O., Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictRanchi

¶12

Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of Sri Sudarshan Prasad Gupta, resident of Mission Road Lane Kanke Road, Ranchi at present residing of Kali Babu Street, Upper Bazar, Post Office-G.P.O., Police Station-Kotwali, District- Ranchi

¶13

Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Gangu Singh

¶14

Lila Devi, daughter of late Gangu Singh both residents of Mela Road Tehta, Post Office-Tehta, Police Station-Makdumpur, District- Jahanabad at present residing at Mission Gali, Kanke Road, Post Office and Police Station-Gonda, DistrictRanchi …… Respondents

¶15

…… Respondents

¶16

---------

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶18

---------

¶19

For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶20

Mr. K. K. Ambastha, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondents :

¶22

12/Dated: 05/01/2023

¶23

Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha assisted by Mr. K. K. Ambastha, learned

¶24

counsel for the appellants.

¶25

This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree dated 23.07.2014 (decree signed on 31.07.2014) passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, IV, Ranchi whereby the Title Appeal No. 136 of 2003 was dismissed and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2003 (decree signed on 01.12.2003 passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-IV, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 52 of 1988.

¶26

Tile Suit No. 52 of 1988 was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession with regard to land situated at Khata No. 82, plot no. 405, 406, 408 and 409 and 221 situated at village Kathargonda @ Danrgonda. The said suit was decided on contest by judgment dated 07.11.2003 and was dismissed and aggrieved with that the appellants filed Title Appeal No. 136 of 2003 which was also dismissed by judgment dated 23.07.2014 and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court.

¶27

¶28

The suit was instituted by the plaintiff/appellant Smt. Prabhawati Devi wife of late Thakur Braj Kishore Lal and Ashish Ranjan Lal and Harish Ranjan Lal both sons of late Thakur Braj Kishore Lal against Deshbandhu Gupta and Sunita Devi wife of Sudarshan Prasad Gupta. The plaintiffs claimed that the lands of Khata No. 82 including plot no. 405, 406, 408 and 409 and 221 situated at village Kathargonda @ Danrgonda was recorded in the revisional survey record of rights in the name of Sukhram Munda and others. It is further alleged that the recorded raiyats surrendered 5.75 acres of land including the aforesaid plots of the village to Maharaja Pratap Uday Nath Shahdeo in the year 1935 and the landlord came in possession of the same. It is further claimed that after surrender of the land which became Bakast the ex-landlord Maharaj Pratab Uday Nath Shahdeo settled the land by way of Chhaparbandi settlement in favour of Thakur Nand Kishore Lal and possession was given on 20^th January, 1940 and since then Thakur Nand Kishore Lal was paying chhaparbandi rent to ex-landlord and subsequently to the State of Bihar. Thereafter it is claimed that Thakur Nand Kishore Lal during his lifetime sold different portions of the land to different persons barring 41 decimals of land within plot no. 405, 408 and 409 of Khata No. 82 which was in his possession and after his death which took place in the year, 1986 his heirs inherited the same. It is further claimed that Thakur Nand Kishore Lal was the grandfather of the plaintiff no. 2 and 3 and father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1. Thakur Braj Kishore Lal was the son of Thakur Nand Kishore Lal. This Thakur Braj Kishore Lal had predecessed his father. It is further alleged that building was constructed by Thakur Nand Kishore Lal over the said 41 decimals of land pursuant to the settlement made on 20^th January, 1940. It is further alleged that Thakur Nand Kishore Lal had sold 10 kathas of land within plot no. 405, 408 and 409 of Khata No. 82 of the said village outside this aforesaid 0.41 acres of land in favour of defendant no. 1. It is further alleged that subsequent to the promulgation of Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation 969 a case was instituted by Thakur Nand Kishore Lal for restoration of land held and possessed by him under section 71A of the CNT Act being SAR Case No. 898 of 1974 and the learned SAR Officer ordered for restoration of the land except the aforesaid 0.41 acres of land which was actually possessed by

¶29

¶30

Thakur Nand Kishore Lal who had made construction of building over the same. It was ordered that in lieu of the aforesaid 0.41 acres of land, Thakur Nand Kishore Lal was ordered to make payment of compensation of Rs. 41,000/- to the applicants of SAR Case and since over the land which was restored back to the applicants of SAR Case Thakur Nand Kishore Lal had acquired some rights by adverse possession. Hence, recorded revisional survey settlement owner was ordered to make payment for compensation of Rs. 32,000/- to Thakur Nand Kishore Lal and finally in view of the adjustment of the compensation amount Thakur Nand Kishore Lal made payment of Rs. 9,000/- to the applicants of SAR Case where after the entire lands barring 41 decimals of land was restored back to the recorded owner. It is further alleged that the defendant who has no right, title and interest over the said 0.41 acres of land which was allowed to be possessed by the said Thakur Nand Kishore Lal in SAR Case started illegally claiming the same by virtue of the sale made sometimes in the year, 1968 by Thakur Nand Kishore Lal in respect of the 10 kathas of land. It is further alleged that the defendants filed an application before the SAR Officer to recall the order dated 08.12.1982 but the same was turned down as the SAR case was already disposed of and an appeal was also filed which was also rejected as the appellant i.e. the defendants/respondents herein withdrew the same. But it is alleged that the learned appellate authority did not allow the withdrawal and ordered for an enquiry with respect to his possession over the property. Lastly, it is alleged that the suit land appertaining to 0.41 acres is absolutely owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the same and the transfer made by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 is also of no effect and hence right, title and interest of the plaintiff be declared over the suit property. It is further alleged that the plaintiff transferred 0.28 acres of land in the year, 1985 and the balance 0.33 acres of land is in possession of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that out of balance 0.33 acres of land the plaintiffs have again transferred a portion of it with Rajendra Ram and others who are in possession of the same while the balance is being possessed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is presently possessing 12 kathas of land which is described in Schedule-B of the plaint. With regards to cause of action it

¶31

¶32

has been alleged that the defendants have forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the land described in Schedule –B in the year, 1996 i.e pendentelite dispossession has been stated by way of amendment. On this basis the case has been instituted as the defendant was trying to interrupt with the possession of the plaintiff. Prayer has been made for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property and for decree for recovery of possession and other incidental reliefs. Schedule-A is the description of 0.33 acres of land along with house over plot no. 405, 408 and 409 while schedule-B is the description of12 kathas of land along with compound wall over plot no. 405, 408 and 409 of khata no. 82.

¶33

Defendant no. 1 Deshbandhu Gupta has appeared and filed written statement on 05.03.1996. The defendant no. 2 is the purchaser from defendant no. 1 as such steps into the shoes of defendant no. 1, though separate written statement has also been filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 Sunita Devi on 12.01.1997. Both the defendants have contested the claim of the plaintiff and has stated that the suit is not maintainable being barred under the various provisions of Specific Relief Act. It has not been properly valued and is also bad for non-joinder of parties as all the legal heirs and Thakur Nand Kishore Lal has been impleaded as party. The source of title is admitted. It is not in dispute that the defendant is also a purchaser of 10 kathas of land from Thakur Nand Kishore Lal in the year, 1969 but it has been contended that the order passed in SAR case does not bind the defendant and that the property purchased by the defendant lies within 0.41 acres of land which was left over for the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in the SAR Case. It has also been contended that the defendant is in possession of the same and has constructed a house over it and hence title of the plaintiff cannot be declared in respect of the same. It has also been submitted that the defendant has purchased only land appertaining to plot no. 408, 409 and that third plot bearing plot no. 405 is nowhere claimed by the defendant. It has also been submitted that the appeal was withdrawn by the defendant and in terms of the order and enquiry was conducted and possession of the defendant was found. Thus, the defendant has disputed the claim of the title of the plaintiff over the suit property.

¶34

¶35

The only point argued by Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants that learned appellate court has not formulated the points and decided the appeal which is in the teeth of violation of several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. To buttress his argument he relied in the case of “Manjula & Others Vs. Shyamsunder & others” 2022 (3) SCC 90 . He submits that points formulated by the Trial Court has not been answered by the Trial Court and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. He submits that this second appeal may be admitted.

¶36

The Court has gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court. The learned trial court in para 4 of the judgement has formulated 16 points to decide the issue. Each and every point has been answered by the trial court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to not deciding the issue is not accepted by the Court. Framed points were answered by the learned trial court. There is no illegality in the trial court judgement. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to appellate court judgment, the Court has gone through the said judgment and finds that the learned appellate court in para 6 has framed points to the effect that the moot question for determination and the controversy leading to the present suit is as to whether the property which was transferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff through registered sale deed of the year, 1968 was retained by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in the SAR proceeding or was restored back to the recorded raiyat in the said SAR proceeding of the year, 1974. This point has been affirmed by the learned appellate court and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is negated by this Court. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant was in the fact and circumstances of that case. There would not have been points formulated that is why order has been passed in that case but in the case in hand points have been formulated as such this judgment is not helping the appellants.

¶37

The learned appellate court has minutely gone through the documents as well as judgement of the learned trial court and thereafter has delivered the judgment in appeal. Apparently 5 ¼ decimals of land within plot no. 408 still remains

¶38

¶39

to the balance even if one goes by the assumption that some land purchased by the defendant was restored back. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff that the land purchased by the defendant is not within 41 decimals of land which was left over in the SAR case apparently stands falsified. Thereafter the matter was considered by the learned appellate court and the question as to whether part of land purchased by the defendant was restored back and part remained within the 41 decimals of land which was left over for the plaintiffs in the SAR proceeding, has been discussed therein. The only logic which has been advanced on behalf of the plaintiff before the courts that in the said restoration proceeding the land which was left over in favour of the plaintiff was on the basis of possession and hence the defendant cannot claim any right over the same, has been discussed in the appellate court judgment as well as trial court judgment. The defendant therein was not party to the proceeding and undisputedly only 3 decimals of land within plot no. 408 was restored back while the defendant purchased 8 ¼ decimals of land within plot no. 408. The learned appellate court has considered the compensation to the predecessor in the interest of plaintiff. Considering all these aspects, the learned appellate court has delivered judgment.

¶40

There is concurrent finding of the courts. No interference is required by this Court. No relief can be extended to the appellants. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.

¶41

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶42

Satyarthi/

Smt Prabhawati Lal and Ors. v. Deshbandhu Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prabhawati Lal and Ors. v. Deshbandhu Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Ful Kunwar Devi and Ors. Vs Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Sunil Manjhi And Ors. Vs Pawan Rai And Ors.

Soma Oraon Vs Kaila Oraon And Ors.

Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gita Devi and Ors.

Bindeshwar Sahu and Anr. Vs Ram Udeshwar Ram and Ors.

Smt Indu Gupta Alias Indu Devi and Ors. Vs Hemant Kumar Poddar