Peter Munda vs Joseph Runda
2022 Latest Caselaw 3901 Jhar

                                 1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     C.M.P. No.403 of 2021
                              -----

     Peter Munda                                    .......... Petitioner.
                            -Versus-
     1. Joseph Runda
     2. David William Runda
     3. Christ Mukut Ignetious Runda
     4. Anup Runda
     5. Johnson Runda
     6. Rahul Raj Runda
     7. Kumud Runda
     8. Ishan Raj Runda
     9. Wowas Munda
     10. Sanjay Munda
     11. Faguni Mundain
     12. Tikas Munda
     13. Daniel Munda
                                                    .......... Respondents.
                              -----
     CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                              -----
     For the Petitioner :       Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
     For Res. Nos.1 to 8 :      Mr. J. J. Sanga, Advocate
                              -----
     Order No.12                                    Date: 23.09.2022

1. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing part of the order dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure-3 to this petition) passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in Original (Title) Suit No. 223 of 2021, whereby the plaintiff/petitioner has been directed to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as one of the defendants in the said suit in view of the Order I Rule 3 of CPC, State Amendments (Bihar) inserted vide Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 made applicable with effect from 08.02.1969.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit being Original (Title) Suit No. 223 of 2021 against the defendants/respondents, seeking preliminary decree for partition of his share in the suit property and also for grant of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents from changing the nature and complexion of the suit property as well as for restraining them from executing any agreement of sale or transfer or alienating the suit property in favour of subsequent purchaser(s).

3. Pursuant to filing of the said suit, Sheristadar of Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Ranchi pointed out certain objections through office note, which are as follows:-

(a) Plaintiff be directed to pay ad valorem court fee of Rs.50,000/-

for grant of perpetual injunction; and

(b) The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi be impleaded as one of the defendants.

4. The Plaintiff filed a petition on 07.10.2021, questioning the said report of Sheristadar, stating, inter alia, that since both the parties are co- sharers and belong to scheduled tribe community, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is not a necessary party to be impleaded in the said suit, as would manifest from perusal of Section 46(3-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1908'). However, the court below rejected the said petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioneer vide order dated 11.10.2021, observing that in view of Order I Rule 3 CPC, State Amendments (Bihar), the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is a necessary party to the suit in order to protect the right of the tribals in the tribal areas.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has misconstrued the settled proposition of law as envisaged under section 46(3-A) of the Act, 1908, whereby the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district is said to be a necessary party in all suits of civil nature relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties of the suits is a member of the schedule tribe and the other party is not a member of the scheduled tribe. It is further submitted that the present suit has been preferred against the co-sharers, who belong to scheduled tribe and the petitioner is claiming specific share in the suit property, as such the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is not a necessary party. It is also submitted that all the parties are joint owners of the suit property as such Order I Rule 3 CPC, State Amendments (Bihar) has no application to the facts and circumstance of the present case. Moreover, no relief has been claimed against the State and as such, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is not the necessary party and the trial court has committed grave error in passing the impugned order dated 11.10.2021.

6. It is further submitted that the said land was jointly recorded in the names of the ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendants and after death of the recorded tenants, they continued to make payment of rent to the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) in the name of their predecessors. In the current survey operation, a Banda Parcha was prepared jointly in the name of Jagarnath Munda (predecessor-in-

interest of the plaintiff) and Johan Munda, Dominic Munda, Joseph Munda, David Munda and Mukut Munda (the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants) and the said Banda Parcha has not been challenged by the defendants under section 83 of the Act, 1908.

7. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) Uma Pada Choudhary Vs. Panchanand Choudhary reported in AIR 2006 Jhr. 82

(ii) Kalicharan Mahto Vs. Gangadhar Mahto reported in 2019 (4) JCR 192 (Jhr.)

(iii) Rangoo Kachhap & Another Vs. Karma Kachhap & Others (C.M.P No. 42 of 2022)

8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 8 submits that the petitioner is an imposter and does not belong to the genealogical table of the respondents and as such he cannot claim any right over the said land. It is further submitted that the respondent nos.1 to 8 are in undisputed peaceful cultivating possession of the land in question, whereas the petitioner has manufactured a genealogical table, who in connivance with antisocial elements and land brokers is trying to enter into the land thereby disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent nos.1 to 8. It is also submitted that the purpose of impleading the Deputy Commissioner as a necessary party in a suit is to protect the right of tribals. The cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case since the said cases were simply for partition whereas in the case in hand the respondents claim that the petitioner is an imposter and is not in the genealogical table of the respondent nos.1 to 8. Thus, in order to ascertain the truth, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is necessarily required to be impleaded in the said suit.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with part of the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi, whereby he has been directed to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as one of the defendants.

10. This Court in the case of Rangoo Kachhap (Supra.) after considering the provisions of Order I Rule 3 CPC (State Amendments- Bihar) and section 46(3-A) of the Act, 1908 as also the earlier judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this court rendered in the case of Uma Pada Choudhary (Supra.) and Kali Charan Mahto

(Supra.), has held that in a partition suit filed against the co-sharers, the Deputy Commissioner is not a necessary party. In paragraph nos.6 to 9 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:-

"6. I have perused Order-1 Rule 3 CPC, State Amendments (Bihar) inserted vide Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 made applicable w.e.f 08.02.1969, which provides that the Deputy Commissioner is to be mandatorily joined as defendant in any suit for declaration of title or for possession relating to immovable properties of a member of Schedule Tribes as specified in the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

7. I have also perused Section 46(3-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall be a necessary party in all suits of a civil nature relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suit is a member of the Schedule Tribe and the other party is not a member of the Schedule Tribe.

8. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that in any suit of civil nature where one of the parties is a member of the scheduled tribe and other is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the Deputy Commissioner shall be a necessary party. The purpose behind it is to check filing of collusive suit for transfer of any land belonging to a member of Scheduled Tribe so as to defeat the purpose of the Act, 1908.

9. In the case in hand, the suit filed by the petitioners is not for declaration of title or possession over the land, rather the same is a partition suit filed against the co-sharers and both the parties are the members of Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, no declaration of title and/or possession has been sought against the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner being the representative of the State shall be not a necessary party in the present partition suit. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be directed to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as a party-defendant in the same."

11. In the present case also, the petitioner has filed partition suit claiming his share in the said land claiming himself to be one of the successors of the recorded tenants. The respondent nos.1 to 8 have assiduously contended that the petitioner is an imposter and he is not the co-sharer of the respondents. This Court is of the considered view that the said claim of the respondent nos.1 to 8 can effectively be examined by the trial court and if they successfully prove their contention, then the suit of the petitioner seeking preliminary decree of partition will fail. However, since the present suit has been framed as a partition suit, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi shall not be a necessary party. Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to show that the case of Rangoo Kachhap (Supra.) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The Deputy Commissioner is not required to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the said suit only on the ground that the respondents are disputing the share of the petitioner over the land in question for one reason or the other. As held in the aforesaid case, the purpose behind making provision for impleading the Deputy Commissioner as party-defendant is to check filing of collusive suit for

transfer of any land belonging to a member of scheduled tribe so as to defeat the purpose of the Act, 1908. The petitioner has not claimed declaration of his title over the said land, rather has claimed partition of the same which can be decreed in his favour only when he proves that he is one of the successors of the recorded tenants. Moreover, both the parties are the members of scheduled tribe. Thus, there is no reason to direct the petitioner to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as one of the defendants in the said suit.

12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by Sub-Judge-1, Ranchi in Original (Title) Suit No. 223 of 2021 to the extent of directing the petitioner to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as one of the defendants is set aside.

13. The present civil miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/