Ratan Lal Vs Ganga Lal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Second Appeal No. 53 of 2020

1(a) Madhuri Devi w/o Late Ratan Lal

1(b) Jeetesh Lal 1(c) Abhimanyu Lal Both S/o Late Ratan Lal 1(d) Puja Kumari, D/o Late Ratan Lal All R/o- Irgu Road Near Masjid, Garikhana, P.O., G.P.O., P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, Dist- Ranchi … … Appellants [substituted for defendant no. 1(a) /appellant/appellant]

¶5

Versus

¶6

(1) Ganga Lal son of Late Suraj Bhan Lal, by faith Hindu, by nationality Indian, resident of Lower Burdwan Compound, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶7

… … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent

¶8

(2) Savitri Devi wife of Late Bimal Chand Jain

¶9

(3) Sampat Lal son of Late Bimal Chand Jain, both by faith Hindu, by nationality Indian, both residents of J. J. Road, Upper Bazar, P.O., G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶10

(4) Dinesh Lal son of Late Bimal Chand Jain, by faith Hindu, by nationality Indian, by occupation business, resident of J. J. Road, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) (5) Kiran Devi wife of Prabhat Kumar, resident of Pandra Panchseel Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi

¶11

(6) Meena Devi wife of Nand Kishore Prasad, resident of 165 Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi

¶12

… … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

¶16

For the Appellants : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate

¶17

¶18

07 /02.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 (decree signed on 13.12.2019) passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XX, Ranchi whereby the Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2019 has been dismissed and final decree dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Munsif, Ranchi in Original Suit (Partition) No. 92 of 2005 has been confirmed.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the matter arises out of Partition Suit No. 92 of 2005 wherein the plaintiff had claimed half share of the suit property. He submits that altogether five

¶20

issues were framed and preliminary decree was prepared. Pleader Commissioner was appointed and thereafter, final decree was also prepared.

¶21

4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appeal was filed by one of the defendants namely, Ratan Lal and the main ground in the appeal was that the final decree passed by the learned trial Court was contrary to law and the materials on record; the Pleader Commissioner had not taken the pain to locate the suit property by taking into consideration the fixed point and fixities which was the primary function and duty of the Pleader Commissioner in carving out takhta for partition of the properties. The further ground raised by the said defendant before the first appellate court was that the Pleader Commissioner had not assessed the value of the property while making allotment which was mandatory. It was argued that the report of the Pleader Commissioner was perfunctory and merely a table work.

¶22

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and the appellate Court's judgment calls for interference as admittedly valuation of the property was not done. He has further referred to the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2004 (4) JLJR 452 (Amit Raut Vs. Kanhai Rout and others) and has submitted that in the said case this Court ultimately remanded the matter to the trial Court for passing fresh decree by directing the commissioner to value the properties and ensure allotment of the properties.

¶23

6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, this Court finds that the partition suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a preliminary decree for partition of half share of the suit property and it was further prayed that on appointment of Pleader Commissioner half share be carved out in favour of the plaintiff from the suit property and his takhta be separated. The learned trial Court framed altogether five issues as under:

¶24

"1. Is this suit maintainable?

¶25

2. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit?

¶26

2

¶27

3. Whether there is unity of title and unity of possession in between the parties to the suit with respect to the suit property given in the schedule of the plaint?

¶28

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get half share in the suit property as claimed for?

¶29

5. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?"

¶30

7. The partition suit was decreed and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to half share of the suit property and a preliminary decree was directed to be prepared. The order dated 06.12.2018 passed in Partition Suit No. 92 of 2005 has been placed on record which reveals that Pleader Commissioner had submitted his report on 22.02.2018 and it appeared from the report that the measurement and inspection of the suit property was done after giving notice to all the parties and the son of the original defendant was present at the time of measurement of land. With the help of Executive Magistrate and armed police force, separate allocation of share of plaintiff over the suit property along with the boundary was done as per the preliminary decree dated 29.02.2016 and also a sketch map was prepared showing the allotment. After filing of the report, no objection was filed and ultimately the report of the Pleader Commissioner was accepted for carving separate share of parties as per preliminary decree and the final decree was prepared.

¶31

8. Before the appellate Court, the appeal was filed by only one of the defendants against the final order dated 06.12.2018 passed in final decree proceeding in the original suit by which the learned Munsif had accepted the report of the Pleader Commissioner. The said defendant (appellant before the first appellate Court) prayed for setting-aside the final decree passed in the partition suit. The appellant had no grievance with regards to the issues decided in the partition suit.

¶32

9. The points raised by the original appellant have been recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned appellate court’s judgement and upon perusal of paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment this court finds that the appellate Court has recorded that the Pleader Commissioner had allotted share to the parties in the available land for partition and there was no dispute regarding identification and

¶33

3

¶34

boundary of the suit land and therefore, there was no need to take fixed point to locate the suit premises. The learned appellate Court further recorded that the Pleader Commissioner had allotted shares to the parties to the suit in the available identified suit property. The learned appellate Court referred to the provision of Order XLVI Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure dealing with the "Procedure of Commissioner". The learned appellate Court further recorded that the learned trial Court did not commit any error in accepting the report of the Pleader Commissioner which was in accordance with the law and procedure. The appellant had full knowledge of the original suit from the day he was examined as DW-1 in suit. The learned appellate Court further noted that the appellant had also appeared in the final decree proceeding, but did not file any objection against the report of the Pleader Commissioner and ultimately, dismissed the appeal.

¶35

10. So far as the judgment cited by the appellants passed in the case of Amit Raut (Supra) is concerned, in the said judgment objection was raised in connection with the division of property by the amin commissioner and the objection was rejected by the trial court and the objection was in connection with inequitable distribution of property in terms of the value of the share in the property and the finding of the first appellate court that allotment of the property with or without road frontage have equal advantages was held to be unjust and not sustainable in law . In the aforesaid judgment of Amit Raut (Supra) it has been held that normally, in an appeal against a final decree, the second appellate court is reluctant to interfere. Firstly, in most of the cases where the question is only of allotment of one property or another to the sharers no question of law would arise out of the claim for allotment justifying interference. Secondly, most of the suits for partition are of ancient vintage and any interference in second appeal would tend to prolong the litigation in court and keep the litigants out of the fruits of the decree. However, the court in the said case interfered in the matter on account of objection raised to the report of the pleader commissioner on the point of inequitable distribution of property in terms of frontage of land and also on the value of allotted

¶36

4

¶37

share in the property and the objection was held to be wrongly rejected and it was held that the first appellate court had wrongly rejected the appeal.

¶38

11. The said judgement does not help the appellants in any manner whatsoever. In the present case there is no grievance regarding inequitable distribution of property in terms of value or otherwise. In the present case, as per the report of the pleader commissioner no building was found on the suit land and it had some temporary shed and this fact is also not in dispute. The identification of the property is also not in dispute. The entire report of the pleader commissioner has been quoted which reveals participation/presence of the parties at the time of local inspection and measurements and no objection was filed to the report of the pleader commissioner. The learned appellate court has also recorded that delaying tactics were adopted and while deciding the appeal the appellate court has considered all the relevant arguments and materials on record.

¶39

12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.

¶40

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

¶41

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶42

Pankaj

¶43

5

Ratan Lal v. Ganga Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Lal v. Ganga Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Raman Prasad Vs G.M., Patratu Tharmal Power

Bindu Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Saundik Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Compoter Yadav Vs the State of Bihar through the Circle Officer Ashok Kumar Jha of Godda Anchal

The Management of Ms Telco Limited through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Shri Rajesh Kumar Das Vs Manorama Shrivastava

Anil Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.