Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Ram Ravi vs Shyam Ravi & Ors on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 507 of 2015
Dinesh Ram Ravi..................... Appellant
Versus
Shyam Ravi & Ors. ............ Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.N.Deo, Advocate
......
8/05.10.2021 This appeal will be heard on the following substantial question of
law:-
(i) Whether both the courts below failed to take into
consideration that after purchase of the land in question, the
defendant no. 1 stepped in the shoes of defendant no. 2 and
became the co-sharer of undivided joint family.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff should have prayed for partition of the
joint family property before praying to declare the sale deed
executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 as
void.
(iii) Whether the courts below committed serious error of law in
holding that defendant no. 2 has sold more land than what
would have fell in his share when no such specific issues have
been framed to come to a conclusion as to what would be the
correct share of each of the sharer.
(iv) Whether while deciding Issue No. IX, the courts below has
not considered all the lands, which are joint and when doing so
could have arrived at a conclusion that defendant no. 2 has
sold more than what he has.
(v) Any other point of law, which would be framed prior to final
hearing of this appeal.
Call for the lower court records.
Issue notice to the respondents, for which requisite etc. under
Ordinary process must be filed within three weeks.
I.A. No. 5748 of 2021
By filing this interlocutory application prayer has been made to
stay the further proceedings of Execution Case No. 4 of 2009, pending in
the court of Munsif, Chaibasa.
From the impugned judgment of both the courts below, it is quite
clear that after execution of the sale deed, this appellant is in possession
of the property in question. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the
appellant/defendant no. 1 is in possession over the property in question.
Considering the fact that the main appeal has been admitted, it
can be said that a prima-facie case is made out for grant of stay.
Since the appellant is in possession over the land in question,
which is an admitted fact, the balance of convenience is in his favour and
if he is removed and the execution case is allowed to proceed, he will suffer
an irreparable loss.
Considering the aforesaid fact, further proceedings of Execution
Case No. 4 of 2009, pending in the Court of Munsif, Chaibasa, shall
remained stayed, till further orders.
The possession of the appellant over the disputed land in
question, will not be disturbed.
I.A. No. 5748 of 2021 stands disposed of.
Let this order be communicated to the court concerned
immediately through FAX.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp. 2
