Rana Bachan Singh Alias Rana Ram Bacchan Singh Vs Ramjanam Yadav

Sheela Devi @ Shila Devi, age about 33 years, daughter of Late Rana Ram Naresh Singh, wife of Satrughan Singh, resident of villageHurka, P.O-Panhar, P.S.-R. Kotha, District-Rohatas (Bihar)

¶10

Urmila Devi, age about 30 years, daughter of Late Rana Ram Naresh Singh, wife of Surendra Singh, resident of village-Darua, P.O.-Darua, P.S.- Hussainabad, District-Palamau.

¶11

Maina Devi, age about 28 years, daughter of Late Rana Ram Naresh Singh, wife of Jitendra Singh, resident of village-Gamhar Bigha, P.O.-kamgarpur, P.S.-Hussainabad, District-Palamau.

¶12

Buchi Devi, age about 26 years, daughter of Late Rana Ram Naresh Singh, wife of Anil Singh, resident of village-Jhargode, P.O.Jhargode, P.S. Hussainabad, District-Palamau.

¶13

Ramjanam Yadav @ Ram Janam Yadav son of Ram Prasad Yadav, resident of village+Post-Belhath, P.S.-Manjhiaon, District-Garhwa.

¶14

… … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent

¶15

Smt. Jayutri @ Smt. Jautri Devi, wife of Shri Karamdeo Ram, resident of village- Kharaundha, P.O.- Belhath, P.S.- Manjhiaon, District- Garhwa.

¶16

… … Defendant/Respondent/Respondent

¶17

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶19

--For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate ---

¶20

10 /16.01.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶21

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.03.2018 and decree dated 10.04.2018 passed by learned District Judge-I, Garhwa whereby the Title Appeal No. 01 of 2014 was

¶22

dismissed and the judgment dated 19.12.2013 and decree dated 07.01.2014 (decree signed on 10.01.2014) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 1 of 2005 has been confirmed.

¶23

3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 10.07.2023 indicating the following substantial question of law:

¶24

“Whether both the courts below have committed perversity by not specifying the relief granted by it to the plaintiff and merely mentioning that the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff though one of the prayer is full cost of the suit to be awarded to the plaintiff but in the operative portion passing the contrary order that both the parties will bear the cost of the suit without mentioning that the said relief no. V has not been granted to the plaintiff?”

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Title Suit No. 1 of 2005 was filed for multiple reliefs which is apparent from the decree passed by the learned trial Court. He has also referred to the fact that the judgment was passed by simply stating that the suit is decreed in terms of the relief prayed. He has also submitted that in the prayer of the suit, full cost of the suit was prayed for, but the operative portion is contrary, inasmuch as, it has been stated that both the parties will bear the cost.

¶26

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that issue nos. 7 and 8 with regard to payment of Rs. 46,000/- was decided vide paragraph 7 of the trial Court's judgment in which it was recorded that the amount was paid and the trial Court recorded that no judgment be passed on the same, but as per the decree even the prayer that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 be directed to receive the balance consideration amount of Rs. 46,000/- from the plaintiff has been allowed.

¶27

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have enumerated the final relief which was granted and to the extent it was granted. He submits that the decree which has been prepared is inconsistent with the judgment passed. He submits that even the appellate Court has not formulated the relief granted and the appeal has been simply dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the question of law be answered and the

¶28

2

¶29

matter be remitted to the learned trial Court for passing an appropriate order with regard to the relief which has been granted to the concerned party. He submits that the learned Court may seek assistance of the respective parties.

¶30

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellants could have applied for amendment of the decree, if there was any grievance.

¶31

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts, this Court finds that following reliefs were prayed for in the suit:

¶32

"I. It be adjudicated and declared upon that the plaint has been coming in right, title and possession of the suit land since 9.6.2004 having absolute right and title for the same and the defendant no. 1 to 3 had/have neither right nor title nor possession over suit land or any piece of the same and as such their subsequent transferee defendant no. 4 of the part of the suit land acquired nothing by virtue of collusive paper transaction i.e. deed no. 9381 dt. 5.11.2004 and the same is void ab initio. The plaintiff was/is/will always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the defendant no. 1 to 3 who are not performing the part of the contract.

¶33

II. The defendant no.1 to 3 be directed to receive the balance consideration money of Rs. 46,000/- from the plaintiff and to hand over the original transferred deed no. 3539 dt. 9.6.2004 to him within stipulated period failing which the same be ordered to be delivered through the process of the court.

¶34

III. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit land be confirmed and if he found dispossessed from the suit land or from any piece of the same he be ordered to be put in possession of the same through the process of the court.

¶35

IV. The defendants be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by issuing mandatory injunction against them.

¶36

V. Full cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.

¶37

VI. The plaintiff be awarded by other relief or reliefs for which he may be deemed to be entitled."

¶38

9. The judgment passed by the learned Trial Court reveals that as many as 11 issues were framed, all of which were taken into consideration and ultimately, in the final order it was directed that the suit is decreed and consequently, the decree has been prepared enumerating the entire relief as prayed for by the plaintiff.

¶39

3

¶40

10. This Court finds that the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and has not recorded anything further with regards to the relief. The learned appellate Court recorded that the decree requires no interference and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court and the cross-objection was dismissed on contest.

¶41

11. This Court finds that upon going through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court it cannot be said that all the reliefs as prayed for by the plaintiff were decided in favour of the plaintiff and one such example is the decision in connection with issue nos. 7 and 8 decided vide paragraph 7 of the judgement wherein it was recorded that an amount of Rs. 46,000/- was already paid and the said issue was ultimately not required to be decided. Further, as pointed out in the substantial question of law itself, the plaintiff had prayed for full cost of the suit but in the operative portion, it was directed that both the parties will bear the cost. Accordingly, decreeing the suit in toto is in conflict with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

¶42

12. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court having not drawn specific conclusion with respect to each relief as prayed in the suit by referring to the findings recorded with respect to each issue has committed serious error resulting in passing of decree which is contrary to its findings/order. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered as follows: -

¶43

both the courts have committed perversity by not specifying the relief granted by it to the plaintiff and merely mentioning that the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Such decree included decree with respect to one of the prayers of award of full cost of the suit but in the operative portion of the judgement it has been ordered that both the parties will bear the cost of the suit.

¶44

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the decree drawn by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set-aside. On the same count, the decree prepared by the learned appellate Court confirming the decree of the learned Trial Court also cannot be sustained which is also set-aside. 14. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court only for the purposes of preparation of fresh decree in consonance with the

¶45

4

¶46

findings/directions/order recorded in the judgement with respect to each issue which is required to be prepared with the assistance of the parties. The parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 03.03.2025 at 11.00 am.

¶47

15. This second appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶48

16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶49

17. Let the records received from the learned Court be sent back to

¶50

the learned Court concerned forthwith.

¶51

18. Let this judgement be communicated to the learned Court concerned through ‘FAX’.

¶52

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)