Dismissed¶29

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Apr 2024SA/268/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adverse possession; question of fact; concurrent findings; second appeal admission stage; Section 100 CPC; Order 41 Rule 31 CPC; points for determination; substantial question of law; declaratory decree; settlement by Circle Officer Kharsawan; State of Jharkhand; Title Suit No. 33 of 2008; Title Appeal No. 27 of 2011; District Judge-II Seraikella Kharswan; dismissal at admission.

What did the court decide?

A claim of title on the basis of adverse possession is a question of fact. ¶28

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 268 of 2015

¶2

Barun Singh

¶3

Babu Ram Hembram

¶4

2a. Sonaram Hembram

¶5

Sukram Hembram

¶6

.... …. Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharswan

¶9

The Circle Officer, Kharswan Circle

¶10

Turi Hembram @ Turam Hembram

¶11

.... .... Respondents -----

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

¶14

For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Diva Kant Roy, AC to SC (Mines)-I

¶15

¶16

Oral Order

¶17

10 / Dated : 15.04.2024

¶18

The instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment of affirmation passed by learned District Judge-II, Seraikella Kharswan in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2011.

¶19

The plaintiffs / appellants filed Title Suit No. 33 of 2008 for declaration of right, title and confirmation of their possession over the suit land detailed in Schedule A of the Plaint, and also for declaring that the settlement of the suit land by the Circle Officer, Kharsawan in favour of defendant no. 3 was not legal and binding on the plaintiffs.

¶20

The case of the Plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land detailed in Schedule A was recorded in the name of the State of Bihar now Jharkhand during last survey settlement operation, but the appellants forefather had been enjoying the possession over the said land. The plaintiffs had also their raiyati land adjoining to the suit land detailed in Schedule B of the plaint for last 60 years. The immediate cause of action for filing the suit was that the land was settled by the Circle Officer, Seraikella in favour of defendant no. 3.

¶21

The State authority appeared before the court below and filed their written statements. It is the case of the defendant respondents that after vesting the land was recorded in the name of the State. Merely because the house and homestead land of the plaintiffs were adjacent to the suit land did not confer

¶22

¶23

any right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was denied.

¶24

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The following main issue, inter alia, was framed:

¶25

Issue No. VIII— Whether the plaintiffs were entitled for a decree declaring their right title over the suit land holding therein plaintiffs had perfected their title by adverse possession?

¶26

Learned trial court as well as the Court of First Appeal answered the issue in negative.

¶27

The instant second appeal has been filed on the ground that the lower appellate court has decided the appeal in perfunctory manner without framing point for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C.

¶28

This Court is of the view that the claim of title on the basis of adverse possession is a question of fact, in which there is concurrent findings passed by both Courts below wherein the possessory title has been denied and cannot be re-agitated in second appeal. This Court does not find any substantial question of law for admitting the instant appeal.

¶29

Instant appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

¶30

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶31

AKT/Satendra

¶32

Uploaded

¶33

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Ram Alias Santosh Alias Bhola Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biru Alias Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Takbeer Khan Alias Taqbir Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandlal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Chandra Saw Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.