Tulo Mahto vs Darshan Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2284 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    [Civil Appellate Jurisdiction]
                           S.A. No. 21 of 2015
         Tulo Mahto, S/o Roshan Mahto                       .... .. ...          Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
         1.Darshan Singh, S/o Late Govind Singh
         2.Narayan Singh, S/o Sri Darshan Singh                       .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                          ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) .........

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate.

      For the Respondent              :
                          ..........

08 / 08.07.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.

The instant Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2014 and decree sealed and signed on 08.12.2014 passed by learned District Judge-I, Giridih in Title Appeal No.06/2007 whereby the judgment dated 14.12.2006 and decree sealed and signed on 23.12.2006 passed by learned 2 nd Addl. Munif, Giridih in Title Suit No.140 of 1996 has been affirmed.

Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued the case and submitted that the plaintiff has right over the land which has not been considered by the learned both the courts below.

Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Gairmajarua khas land has been reclaimed by the plaintiff since long and after investing the huge amount, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration of title over the suit land in the event of dispossession recovery of the possession thereof. The courts below have not considered the Korkar right of the plaintiff and thus, dismissed the suit as well as the appeal. As such, this Court may interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below.

Considering such submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and after having gone through the materials available on records, it appears that the suit land is Gairmajarua khas land and the State has never been impleaded as party- defendant by the plaintiff/appellant/appellant. There is concurrent findings of both the courts below, which cannot be interferred in the Second Appeal.

As such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors. vs. Lehna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 641 and also in view of the fact that nothing has been pointed out by the appellant to suggest that there

is substantial question of law involved in the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, as such, no interference is required by this Court.

Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

Thus, I.A. No.2354 of 2018 and I.A. No.2347 of 2018 stand closed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/