Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Yadav vs The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. & ... on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
S.A. No. 155 of 2012
........
Lakhan Yadav .... ..... Appellant
Versus
The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. & Others
.... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Peeyush, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
........
07/25.02.2021.
Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Sahay Gaurav Peeyush on the instruction
of learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee.
The second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent finding
of two courts below.
It appears that Title Suit No. 140/1989 has been preferred by the Tata
Iron and Steel Company Ltd. being plaintiff, against Garboo Yadav, being
defendant, for declaration of title of the plaintiff as lessee over the land
described in plaint and also for recovery of possession of the land in suit
after evicting the principal defendant therefrom by demolishing the structure
standing thereon.
The suit property is R.S. Plot No. 2421 along with other lands in
mouza-Sakchi, which has been acquired before the Revisional Survey
Settlement by the then provincial Government under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The title and possession of which were conveyed and delivered to the
plaintiff company under the provisions of the said Act.
The principal defendant on 20.07.1980 trespassed on the land as
described in schedule and unlawfully constructed house and compound wall
inspite of protest on behalf of the plaintiff and thus continuing in wrongful
possession of the same.
The learned trial court has framed altogether five issues, which are
as follows:-
1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
2. Has the plaintiff cause of action for the suit?
3. Is the suit barred by limitation, waiver and estoppel and under
the Specific Relief Act?
4. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as claimed for ?
5. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?
The learned trial court has decided all the issues in favour of he
plaintiff. The issue with regard to law of limitation, waiver and estoppel
and under the Specific Relief Act have not been pressed as the defendant
has not agitated the same before the learned trial court. The title suit was
decreed vide judgment dated 29.09.1993 and decree signed on 12.10.1993
by the learned Munsif, Jamshedpur.
The defendant has preferred Title Appeal No. 65/1993 on the
grounds, that the impugned judgment passed by learned Munsif is highly
erroneous on the facts and without appreciating the evidences available on
the record, the court below wrongly decreed the suit brought by the
respondent no. 1 / plaintiff. The court below has ignored the evidence
adduced by the appellant / defendant, that he is in peaceful possession
over the suit land for more than 30 years after constructing house over the
same without any hindrance from any corner. It has further been
submitted that respondent no. 1 did not mention the name of the person
from whom the land was acquired by the provincial government and no
document has been filed in this regard and in the new lease deed, there is
no reference of the suit land.
The lower appellate court has framed three issues, which are as
follows:-
1. Whether decree declaring title of the respondent no. 2 / proforma
defendant i.e. State of Bihar as absolute owner and respondent no.
1/plaintiff as lessee over the land in question under State of Bihar now
Jharkhand be passed?
2. Whether the appellants / defendant has perfected his title over the
suit land by remaining there for continuous more than 30 years adverse to
the interest of all concerned including the respondent no. 1 and respondent
no. 2.
3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court
below is just and proper or it requires any interference of this court?
All the three issues have been decided in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent/ respondent i.e. Tata Iron and Steel Company
Limited.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the while
deciding Issue No. 1 at para-12 of the appellate court judgment, the
learned appellate court himself has considered that it can safely be
inferred that it has valid papers in his favour on the basis of which title of
the respondent no. 2 / proforma defendant as absolute owner of the suit
land and title of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff over the suit land under
proforma defendant can be declared, but the word 'can be' may consider
by this Court while deciding the second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the learned
lower appellate court has drawn inference, meaning thereby that no
specific and direct finding has been given by the learned lower appellate
court, as such, the matter may be remanded to the court below.
The admitted fact on which both the courts below have decreed the
suit in favour of the plaintiff is finding on fact. The High Court in second
appeal while adjudicating the appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is not
expected to go into the facts. The hearing of appeal under Section 100
C.P.C. is different than hearing under Section 96 C.P.C.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Vs.
Lehna Singh (Dead) by Lrs. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 641, no illegality
has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court on the issues,
that finding recorded by both the courts below are contrary to the
mandatory provisions of law, contrary to the law pronounced by the
Hon'ble Apex Court or finding of facts based on inadmissible evidence.
It appears that the plaintiff Tata Iron Steel Company Limited got this
land by way of lease deed executed in the name of plaintiff Company on
01.01.1985, by the then State of Bihar. The then Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum signed the lease deed on behalf of State and the then Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Tata Iron Steel Company Limited signed
in it on behalf of the Company. The lease deed has been brought on record as
Exhibit-4. In the Revisional Survey, the suit land was recorded in the name
of the plaintiff company. From perusal of the lease deed (Ext. 4) it indicates
that Plot no. 2421(P) having an area of 62 acres under Khata No. 218 finds
mention in this lease deed, which is in the page no. 46 of this deed. The R.S.
Plot No. 2421 appertaining to Khata no. 218 is the subject matter of this T.S.
No. 140/89. From perusal of the materials available on record, both the
courts below have held that the suit land belongs to the State of Bihar now
Jharkhand.
Perusal of the lease deed (Ext. 4) indicates that land was leased out by
the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) in favour of respondent no. 1 / plaintiff
company. No document has been produced by the appellant/defendant no. 1,
regarding his ownership over the land in question nor witness examined on
behalf of the appellant / defendant during trial of Title Suit No. 140/1989
regarding the title of the appellant / defendant over the suit land. No
document has been filed by the appellant/defendant in support of his claim
over the suit land. The original appellant / defendant Gabroo Yadav in his
cross-examination has stated that he does not know in whose name the suit
land was recorded in the revisional survey of 1937.
Considering such evidence brought on record, this Court is satisfied
to the extent that finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, that the
suit land belongs to the State of Bihar now Jharkhand, leased out to the Tata
Iron Steel Company Ltd. is hereby affirmed. As no document has been
brought on record by the defendant to claim the said land, this Court feels
that impugned judgment and decree does not require any interference by this
Court.
As no substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal,
the same is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of order be communicated to the learned court below.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
