Dismissed¶¶22

Sanwarmal Agarwal v. Anima Palit

Jharkhand HC21 Jan 2025SA/398/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal; substantial question of law; admission of second appeal; concurrent findings of fact; re-appreciation of evidence; perversity; eviction of tenant; recovery of possession; Section 11(1)(d) Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000; relationship of landlord and tenant; default in payment of rent; striking off defence of defendant; execution concluded; dispossession of judgment-debtor; S.A. No. 398 of 2019; Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2012; Civil Appeal No. 31/2019; Execution Case No. 11 of 2019; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, calling for admission of the second appeal. ¶¶20

Sanwarmal Agarwal Vs Anima Palit — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant in respect of the suit premises (Trial Issue No. V). +2 more

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, calling for admission of the second appeal.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Once both courts below have appreciated the evidence placed on record and arrived at findings, there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence so as to come to a different finding.ratio¶¶20
This Court found that the trial court considered the materials on record and reached its findings, and the first appellate court considered the appellant's case and the materials on record, upheld the findings and judgment of the trial court, and held the trial court's judgment free from illegality.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (S.A. No. 398 of 2019, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) dismissed. The appeal challenged the judgment dated 02.09.2019 of the Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 31/2019, which had dismissed the defendant's first appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 26.03.2019 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur decreeing Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2012 filed under Section 11(1)(d), Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. With the defendant's defence struck off, both courts below concurrently decided the main issues — relationship of landlord and tenant and default in payment of rent — in favour of the plaintiff. Before the High Court, counsel could point out no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, warranting admission; the Court held that once both courts have appreciated the evidence and returned findings there is no scope for re-appreciation, and no perversity in the appreciation of evidence was demonstrated. Pending I.A. closed. At hearing it was recorded that Execution Case No. 11 of 2019 had been closed after executing the decree and the appellant had been thrown out of possession. Single bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No. 398 of 2019

¶3

Sanwarmal Agarwal, S/o Late Maliram Agarwal, aged about 68 years, resident of Tolodia Complex, 3^rd Floor, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand

¶4

… … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Anima Palit, W/o Ghanshyam Palit, resident of village and Post Haldipokhar, P.S. Potka (Now Kowali) Dist. East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : ---

¶10

08/21^st January 2025

¶11

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

¶12

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.09.2019 (decree signed on 16.09.2019) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 31/2019 whereby the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant and confirmed the judgment dated 26.03.2019 (decree signed on 06.04.2019) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2012.

¶13

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was the defendant in the suit and the suit was filed for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises. He submits that the suit was filed under Section 11 (1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act,2000 . The suit was filed way back in the year 2012 and was numbered as Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2012.

¶14

4. The learned counsel has submitted that although there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts and there is a direction for

¶15

¶16

eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, but the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal has not properly considered the materials placed on record.

¶17

5. The learned counsel, during the course of argument with regard to the status of the execution case relating to delivery of possession of the suit premises has produced a copy of the order dated 10.02.2023 passed in Execution Case No. 11 of 2019 and has submitted that the execution case has been closed after executing the decree and the appellant has been thrown out of possession. However, he submits that the matter is fit to be considered as the appellate court has not properly considered the materials on record.

¶18

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that an order was passed striking off the defence of the defendant who is the appellant before this Court. The learned trial court had framed as many as 7 issues, out of which the issue No. 7 was not pressed by the parties. Issue Nos. V to VI, which were the main issues regarding relationship of land lord and tenant and default in payment of rent respectively, were decided in favour of the plaintiff vide paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgement.

¶19

7. This Court finds that the learned trial court has considered the materials on record and has come to the findings. The learned appellate court has also considered the case of the appellant and the materials on record and upheld the findings and judgment passed by the learned trial court and also held that the trial court’s judgment does not suffer from any illegality .

¶20

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any question of law much less any substantial question of law calling for admission of the second appeal. The law is well-settled that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence and coming to a different finding once both the courts have appreciated the evidence placed on record and have come to the findings. No perversity in the matter of appreciation of

¶21

¶22

evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing. Consequently, this second appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶23

9. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶24

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶25

Mukul

¶26

Sanwarmal Agarwal v. Anima Palit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanwarmal Agarwal v. Anima Palit

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

Ruka Devi Vs Malti Banerjee

Ananda Gorain Vs Karlabala Dasya

Prakash Chandra Adhikari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Durga Charan Mahato Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors.

Kallol Kar Vs Arjun Mondal

Ms C L Sarawgi And Sons And Ors. Vs Anand Prasad And Ors.