R 1. 2(a). 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Dead Tuni Devi Muchirai Mahto v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 12 of 1999R 1. 2(a). 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Dead Tuni Devi Muchirai Mahto Ramai Mahto Panda Mahto Budhuwa Mahto Etwa Mahto Asman Mahto Versus .... …. Appellants Hari Munda Karam Singh Munda Pandu Munda Karam Munda Most. Tilma Devi Mangal Rai Munda Punita Mundain Konta Munda Raufo Devi 1. 2. 3. 4. 5A. 6. 7(a). 8. 9(a). 9(b). Moisu Munda Shiv Munda 9(c). Suka Munda 10. Sirka Munda 11(a). 12(a). Handi Munda 12(b). Koka Munda Sirka Munda 13. 14(a). Sika Munda 14(b). Ratno Munda 15(a). 15(b). 15(c). 15(d). 16(a). Sirka Munda 16(b). Budu Munda Ganjhu Munda 17 Ganjhu Munda 18. 19. Doma Munda 20(A). Suku Munda 20(B). Karam Munda 21. 22(A). Ramay Pahan 22(B). Panda Pahan 22(C). Konta Pahan 22(D). Birsa Pahan 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Jorda Devi Sirka Munda Sundar Munda Sukhlal Munda Somrai Pahan Jadu Pahan Thakur M. Pahan Sutri M. Pahan A-sman Pahan Som Munda 1 28(A). 29. Jitu Pahan Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .... .... Respondents ----- ----- : Mr. V.K. Prasad, Advocate : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate ----- For the Appellant For the Respondents By Court: Heard the parties. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants and the appeal has been preferred against the judgement of affirmance passed by the first appellate Court, dismissing the Suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title. 2. The plaintiffs, who are the proforma defendants nos. 31 and 32, are the agnates of the recorded tenant and they were in settled possession of the suit land. 3. The case of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant nos. 31 and 32 in brief is that RS Khata 60 of Village Karora PS Khunti District Ranchi was recorded in the name of their ancestor as raiyati and they have been paying rent to the State. The defendants were Mundari Khudkattidar and Khewatdar of Khewat No. 3 Series and they used to receive rents from the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. The suit land in question appertaining to Khata No. 59 was recorded in RS Survey in the name of Ramai Mahto who was their ancestor. The recorded tenant died issueless and the plaintiffs are his nearest agnates along with proforma defendants. 4. The cause of action arose for filing the suit as in spite of repeated request for entering their names, Khudkattidar did not make necessary entries of their names. On 25.02.1991 they refused to make necessary entry giving rise to the cause of action. 5. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant nos. 31 and 32 are not the agnates of the recorded tenant of Khata No. 59. They are not remotely connected with the suit land. Defendant nos. 22 to 29 are Pahan Khut. Defendants are Khewatdar of Khewat No. 3/1 to 3/4. After death of the recorded tenant Ramai Mahto of Khata No. 59 the land came escheated by the landlord. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following main issues were framed: Issue No. 3— Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land? 2 Issue No. 10— Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendant nos. 31 and 32 were the agnates of the recorded tenant Ramay Mahto? 7. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit recording a finding that they were no agnates of Ramai Mahto. 8. Learned First Appellate Court concurred with the finding and dismissed the appeal. 9. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- a. Whether the courts below were justified in rejecting the testimony of the plaintiffs on the ground that it is not admissible in law? b. Whether the lower appellate court should have decided the issues raised on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties instead of deciding it merely on the basis of the evidence produced by the plaintiffs ? c. Whether while deciding the most crucial question as to whether the plaintiffs-appellants are agnates of the recorded tenant Ramai Mahto or not, the learned courts below have committed an error on a substantial question of law by not at all considering the admissions in the written statement to the effect that Ramai Mahto is father and ancestor of the plaintiffs who had migrated to this village from different villages ? d. Whether the learned court below have committed an error on a substantial question of law by ignoring from consideration relevant pieces of evidence led on behalf of the plaintiffs and further rejecting their oral testimony on wholly absurd and perverse reasoning ? 10. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that the learned courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. 11. Claim of the plaintiffs is based on propinquity being agnate to the recorded tenant of the suit property. Relationship is question of fact and both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs were not agnates of the last recorded raiyat. The said findings have been recorded extensively dealing with the oral evidences, in the absence of any documentary evidence. Plaint is bereft of the year in which the last recorded tenant died, whereas the Suit has been filed in the year 1991. During course of argument the learned counsel tentatively puts the year of death of the recorded tenant to be sometimes after revisional survey that is around 1936 – 40. If it is so then the Suit has been 3 filed after more than 40 years of the death of the recorded tenant. It is baffling that those who claim title on the basis of the relationship are unable to disclose even the year of the death of the recorded tenant. This Court does not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below. Substantial question of law is answered in the negative against the appellant. Appeal stands dismissed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 16th May, 2024 AFR / AKT Uploaded 4