Hiramani Manjgiain Vs Chhabi Manjgaian and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.170 of 2015

------

Hiramani Manjhiain, daughter of late Nado Manjhi, resident of Basantimata Colliery, P.S.-Nirsha, P.O.-Mugma, Dist.-Dhanbad

¶4

.... .... …. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chhabi Manjhain, wife of Sukul Manjhi resident of Dahibari, P.O. & P.S.-Chirkunda, Dist.-Dhanbad

¶7

Chief General Manager, C V Area No.12, M/s. B.C.C.L., P.O. & P.S.Barakar, Dist.-Budwan/Burdwan (W.B.)

¶8

Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. B.C.C.L. Koila Bhawan, Koylanagar, P.O. & P.S.-Saraidhala, Dist.-Dhanbad

¶9

Project Officer, Dahibari Colliery under M/s B.C.C.L., P.O. & P.S.Chirkunda, Dist.-Dhanbad

¶10

…. .... …. Respondents

¶11

------ For the Appellant : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate

¶12

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶16

This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 13.02.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.12 of 2011 by which the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Sub Judge-V, Dhanbad passed in Title Suit No. 116 of 1996 dated 21.01.2011.

¶17

Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 18.12.2023, though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent no.1 has died and the appellant will file substitution petition and prayed for time for the same but no

¶18

Second Appeal No. 170 of 2015

¶19

¶20

prayer for substitution has been made as yet. Therefore, this appeal abated against the respondent no.1.

¶21

Perusal of the record further reveals that the plaintiffappellant filed Title Suit No. 116 of 1996 with a prayer for declaration that gift deed no.9305 dated 06.12.1980 was forged and void document.

¶22

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule ‘B’ property was jointly shared by the plaintiff who is the appellant herein and the defendant no.1-respondent no.1 of this second appeal. It is further alleged that the respondent no.1 of this second appeal was claiming share of Tete Manjhi by way of forged gift deed and the land in question was acquired by BCCL.

¶23

The defendant-respondent no.1 – Chabbi Manjhain has represented before the BCCL claiming service of her son as well as for compensation.

¶24

Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent no.1 is the only private person to this second appeal and she was also the only private party in the suit. The rest of the respondents i.e. the respondent nos. 2 to 4 of this second appeal are the officers of BCCL.

¶25

The dispute in respect of which the suit was filed was primarily between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1.

¶26

As already indicated above, this appeal is abated against the respondent no.1 hence, this Court is of the considered view that the right to sue of the appellant-plaintiff does not survive against the surviving defendant-respondents only.

¶27

Second Appeal No. 170 of 2015

¶28

¶29