Jharkhand High Court
Kanhai Munda & Others vs Deochand Mahto & Others on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
S.A. No. 293 of 2004
........
Kanhai Munda & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Deochand Mahto & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
........
14/28.01.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants
namely, Kanhai Munda, Ram Kunwar, Raso and Bigni have preferred this
appeal against the judgment dated 31.03.2004 and decree dated
16.04.2004 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
F.T.C.-VI, Hazaribagh, in Title Appeal No. 01/1992, whereby the appeal
has been dismissed and affirmed the judgment dated 20.09.1991 and
decree dated 05.10.1991 passed by learned 1st Additional Munsif,
Hazaribagh, in Title Suit No. 51/85, whereby the suit preferred by the
plaintiffs has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs
have prayed in the suit that the defendants have no right in Schedule-A &
B property as well as judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 219/31
of 1960/1963 passed by Additional Munsif, Hazaribag on 09.02.1963 is
not binding on the plaintiffs, but both the courts below have decided the
issue against the plaintiffs / appellants / appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the case
of the plaintiffs, Lodhar Munda has two sons namely, Ghuja Munda and
Jagu Munda and one daughter Rajwa. Both the sons of Lodhar Munda
died issueless. So far daughter Rajwa is concerned, she has one daughter
Bundiya, who was married with one Jugni Munda of Village - Pochra. The
said Bundiya Devi was blessed by two sons namely, Janki Munda and
Kanhai Munda (plaintiff no. 1) and two daughters Ram Kunwar (plaintiff
no. 2) and Raso (plaintiff no. 3). Janki Munda died leaving behind her sole
daughter Bigni (plaintiff no. 4), as such, after death of Ghuja Munda and
Jagu Munda, being closest and nearest legal heirs, they are rightful owner
of the Schedule-A & B property, which has not been adjudicated by the
courts below in proper perspective, as such, this appeal may be admitted.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
defendants have also preferred S.A. No. 301/2004, which has also been
dismissed vide judgment dated 16.03.2009.
It appears from the impugned judgment passed by the learned
appellate court in para-17 to 21 affirming the judgment passed by the learned
trial court with regard to Issue No. 13, "Whether Ghuja Munda had any
sister and if there was so, was she was mother of plaintiffs?"
The said issue has been decided concurrently against the plaintiffs.
So far the issue of res-judicata regarding binding effect of T.S. No.
219/31 of 1960/1963 passed by Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh on
09.02.1963, the same has been decided against the plaintiffs / appellants /
appellants. Learned lower appellate court has decided the issue in para-22 &
23 of the judgment.
It appears that in view of the recent 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 substantial question of
law is made out as finding recorded by both the courts below are not
contrary to the mandatory provisions of law nor contrary to the law as
pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court nor based on any admissible
evidence as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kondiba
Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar reported in (1999) 3 SCC
722.
Since, no substantial question is made out, the appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
