Jwala Prasad Tiwari AndORS Vs Tetar Chamar And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jwala Prasad Tiwari AndORS Vs Tetar Chamar And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order set aside; Title Appeal No. 42/2005 restored to the file of the First Appellate Court, directed to dispose of the Title Appeal within six months from the date of order; both parties to appear before the First Appellate Court, Daltonganj on 2nd April 2025, non-appearance to be deemed non-appearance despite notice; Miscellaneous Appeal allowed and interlocutory application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the claim of title over the suit land on the basis of the surrender deed was barred under Section 72 of the C.N.T. Act — the issue framed by the First Appellate Court and the ground on which the case was remanded for adjudication afresh. +4 more

Court's answer

The Section 72 CNT Act issue framed by the First Appellate Court and on which the case was remanded was not raised earlier before the trial Court; the First Appellate Court completely misdirected itself in holding that there was violation of Section 72 of the CNT Act.

Ratio / Principle

The requirement of previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was inserted by the CNT Amendment Act, 1947, whereas in the present case the surrender was made by the defendants way back in 1919 and thereafter settled in favour of the plaintiffs; accordingly the remand ground premised on Section 72 of the CNT Act was misconceived.

Key takeaways

The Istifanama adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit-1 was itself addressed to the Deputy Commissioner; therefore the question of violation of Section 72 of the CNT Act did not arise.ratio¶¶95
Settled law on remand: an Appellate Court can remand where the court from whose decree the appeal was preferred had disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and that decree was reversed in appeal; where evidence is on record, Order XLI Rule 24 CPC empowers the appellate court to resettle the issues and decide afresh in first appeal, and remand is not to be ordered merely as a routine measure (principle endorsed via Shiv Kumar @ Ors v. Sharanbasappa, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 385, relied upon in reaching the decision to set aside the remand).ratio¶¶89

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.A. No. 54 of 2008 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J; decided 03.03.2025). Plaintiffs/appellants (Tiwary family) challenged the remand ordered by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 42/2005 under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC, whereby the trial decree in Title Suit No. 97/1990 (declaration of title over 12.09 acres, based on a 1919 surrender registered as Case No. 118/1919-20 and Partition Suit No. 96/1922) had been set aside and the case remanded for fresh adjudication on a newly framed issue that title claimed via the surrender deed was barred under Section 72 of the C.N.T. Act. Held: (i) the remand issue was never raised before the trial Court and the First Appellate Court completely misdirected itself; (ii) the Deputy Commissioner's previous-sanction requirement was inserted only by the CNT Amendment Act, 1947, whereas the surrender occurred in 1919 through a petition to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau; (iii) the Istifanama (Exhibit-1) was itself addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, so no Section 72 violation arose. Relying on Shiv Kumar @ Ors v. Sharanbasappa, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 385 (remand not routine; Rules 23, 23A and 24, Order XLI CPC — final determination where evidence suffices), the Court set aside the impugned order, restored Title Appeal No. 42/2005 and directed its disposal within six months, parties to appear at Daltonganj on 2nd April 2025. Miscellaneous Appeal allowed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment/order of the First Appellate Court disposing of Title Appeal No. 42/2005 on 14.01.2008, which set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the case for adjudication afresh under Order XLI Rule 25 of the CPC on a newly framed issue that the claim of title based on the surrender deed was barred under Section 72 of the C.N.T. Act.¶¶72
First Appellate Court (Title Appeal No. 42/2005), Daltonganj · 14.01.2008
Prior proceeding
Background: suit land surrendered by the recorded tenant to ex-landlord and proprietor Jairam Tiwary by petition to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in 1919, registered as Case No. 118/1919-20; the surrender was accepted and the land allotted to Ramsundar Tiwary (father of Jairam Tiwary) and Tiwary Sheonandan Ram.¶¶73
Prior proceeding
Background: Partition Suit No. 96/1922 instituted by Tiwary Parmeshwar Ram against Jairam Tiwary and others; Plot No. 1355 (area 4.35 acre) and Plot No. 521 (entire area 0.93 acres) of Village Ornor allotted to Jairam Tiwary and Tiwary Sheonandan Ram in joint Takhta.¶¶74
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs (now appellants) filed Title Suit No. 97/1990 for declaration of right, title and interest over 12.09 acres of suit land.¶¶73
Prior proceeding
Trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10th May, 2005.¶¶81
Prior proceeding
Title Appeal No. 42/2005 preferred against the decree dated 10.05.2005; disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 14.01.2008.¶¶88
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree, framed a fresh issue on Section 72 of the C.N.T. Act and remanded the case to the Trial Court for adjudication afresh.¶¶82
Prior proceeding
This miscellaneous appeal was already part heard on 13.02.2025 and 20.02.2025; the Judge declined further adjournment for argument notwithstanding the respondents' request for adjournment.¶¶89