) ------ Sheo Prasad Sahu S/o Late Goberdhan Sahu resident of Village- Senha, P.S v. 1. Kaleshwar Sahu S/o Late Ramsewak Sao
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.56 of 2006 ------ the judgment dated 08.12.2005 passed by learned (Against Additional District Judge-I, Lohardaga in Title Appeal No.04 of 2002) ------ Sheo Prasad Sahu S/o Late Goberdhan Sahu resident of Village- Senha, P.S.- Senha, District- Lohardaga .... .... …. Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Kaleshwar Sahu S/o Late Ramsewak Sao .... .... …. Plaintiff/Respondent/ Respondent 2. Muneshwar Sahu, S/o Late Ramsewak Sao 3. Nand Kishore Sahu 4. Man Mohan Sahu Both Sons of Late Dewan Sahu 5. Sita Devi W/o Late Baleshwar Sahu @ Balkeshwar Sahu 6. Umesh Sahu S/o Late Baleshwar Sahu @ Balkeshwar Sahu All residents of Village Jogna, P.S.- Senha, District- Lohardaga. 7. Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam, War Pramandal, Saheed Chowk, Ranchi. ....
Legal Reasoning
.... …. Defendant/Respondent/ Respondent ------ For the Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 08.12.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, 1 S.A. No.56 of 2006 Lohardaga in Title Appeal No.04 of 2002 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court being the Sub-Judge- I, Lohardaga in Title Suit No.39 of 1997 dated 23.03.2002. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff who is the respondent No.1 of this Second Appeal, filed Title Suit No.39 of 1997 in the court of Sub-Judge- I, Lohardaga with the prayer for declaration of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and also for declaration of entitlement to receive rent from the defendant No.1 with regard to the suit land. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit land. The defendant No.1 being the Bihar Rajya Pool Nirman Nigam Limited started construction of new bridge near the old bridge of Fuljhar river. The defendant No.1 required the suit land for the purpose of stocking materials like iron rod, stone chips, metal, cement and machineries. The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to give the suit land on monthly rent. The plaintiff fixed the monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month as per the English Calendar Month. The defendant No.1 was paying rent to the plaintiff, thus, the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant No.1 is the tenant in respect of the suit property. The defendant No.1 became irregular in paying the rent. The plaintiff served notices upon the defendant No.1 even then the defendant No.1 did not pay the rent and asked the plaintiff to get his title declared by a competent court of law. It is the further the case of the plaintiff that the suit land fell in the share of the plaintiff consequent upon there being an oral partition between the sons of Ramdu Sahu in the year 1967 2 S.A. No.56 of 2006 and since then the plaintiff has been coming in peaceful possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also claimed that there were several partitions between the descendants of Ramdu Sahu. The plaintiff claimed that Ramdu Sahu was his grandfather and Ramdu Sahu was the ex-landlord of village Jogna. 5. The defendant No.1 who was the sole original defendant did not file any written-statement rather filed a compromise petition which was not signed by the authority of the defendant No.1. During the pendency of the suit, several interveners were added as party defendants and these intervener-defendants claimed that the suit land was recorded jointly in the name of the predecessor- in-interest of these defendant. The intervener-defendants claimed that the defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant in the suit land on the joint will and desire of these defendants as also of the plaintiff, hence, the defendants are also entitled to receive rent and maintain the eviction suit against the defendant No.1. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following four issues:- (1) (2) (3) (4) Is the suit maintainable as framed? Is the relationship of landlord and tenant is between plaintiff and defendant Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd? Is the plaintiff got the suit land exclusively by oral partition? Is the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief? 7. In support of their case, the plaintiff altogether examined four witnesses besides proving the documents which have been marked as Ext.1 to Ext. 5. On the other hand the defendants examined six witnesses besides proving the documents which have been marked Ext. A to B-2. 3 S.A. No.56 of 2006 8. The learned trial court first took up issue No.(3) and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the suit land. 9. The learned trial court next took up issue No.(2) and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that, it is clear that the plaintiff has created the tenancy with the defendant and he has received the rent from the defendant No.1, so, it is clear that the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant No.1 is the tenant. 10. Then, the learned trial court took up the issue Nos.(1) and (4) as not pressed and decreed the suit and declared that the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant No.1 is the tenant. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, one of the proforma defendants filed Title Appeal No.04 of 2002 in the court of Principal District Judge, Lohardaga which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court being the Additional District Judge-1st, Lohardaga by the impugned judgment; as already indicated above. 12. The learned first appellate court, in view of the oral and documentary evidence held that the suit lands are not the joint property of the plaintiff and the intervener-defendant Nos.2 and 3 but the suit lands are the exclusive share of the plaintiff allotted to him in the oral partition in the year 1967 taken place during the lifetime of Ramdu Sahu- the common ancestor. The learned first appellate court also after making independent appreciation of the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that it is the plaintiff who has inducted the defendant as a tenant and the plaintiff has been realizing monthly rent from 4 S.A. No.56 of 2006 the defendant and already received Rs.29,050/- and dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the term ‘Building’ as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 includes within its ambit a vacant piece of land. It is next submitted that the judgment and decree is not in terms of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 nor is it in terms of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, being not sustainable in law, the same be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed, after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 14. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the whole Second Appeal is misconceived. The suit of the plaintiff was not under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 nor was the same filed with the prayer for eviction of the defendant No.1 or the realization of the rent from the defendants nor has any such relief been granted by the courts below. The suit was simple suit for declaration under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the trial court has declared the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit land and the defendant No.1 is the tenant. 15. Under such circumstances, either the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 or Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act is not attracted, in the facts of the case. 5 S.A. No.56 of 2006 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. 17. Accordingly, this Second Appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any cost. 18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th of September, 2024 AFR/ Animesh (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 6 S.A. No.56 of 2006