Jharkhand High Court
(A) Lalo Modi vs Niranjan Singh Son Of Brinda Singh on 3 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.53 of 2021
------
(Against the judgment dated 30.06.2018 passed by learned District
Judge-II, Giridih in Civil Appeal No.10 of 2010)
------
1. (a) Lalo Modi
(b) Krishna Lal Barnwal
Both sons of Late Saudagar Modi
(c) Bablu Barnwal son of Late Jai Prakash Lal and the grandson of
Late Saudagar Modi
All residents of Village Amtaro, P.O. and P.S. Gawan, District
(Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Defendants/Respondents/Appellant.
Versus
1. Niranjan Singh son of Brinda Singh
2. Bablu Kumar Singh son of Late Sahdeo Singh
3. Rajendra Singh
4. Shambhu Sharan Singh
5. Shiv Shankar Singh
6. Abated (vide order dated 21.02.2023)
7. Pawan Kumar, No.3 to 5 and 7 sons of Late Sahdeo Singh,
All residents of village Sadja, P.O. and P.S. Gawan, District
Giridih .... .... .... Plaintiffs/Appellans/Respondents
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated
30.06.2018 passed by learned District Judge-II, Giridih in Civil Appeal No.10 of
2010.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.32 of 2009
in the court of Munsif, Giridih with a prayer for declaration that the plaintiff be
declared absolute owner with all the right, title and interest of Schedule B land
being part and parcel of Schedule A land of the plaint, confirmation of
possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, delivery of vacant possession of
Schedule B land, after demolishing the structures and constructions at the cost
of the defendant raised over Schedule B land, order for temporary injunction,
cost and other reliefs. The learned Munsif, Giridih vide judgment dated
09.10.2009 ordered to the extent of the claim of the plaintiff in respect of area 18
decimals of land of Khata No.1 plot No.127 and decreed the suit in part.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial court, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal.
5. The learned first appellate court found that the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court is erroneous in law and set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal.
6. There is no order passed by the learned first appellate court that the suit
of the plaintiff has been decreed. Rather, the entire judgment and decree
passed by the trial court has been set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants abandons the grounds mentioned in
the instant Second Appeal and submits that since the suit has not been decreed
so, the defendant is not aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the
learned first appellate court and as the appellate court by its judgment has set
aside the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.32 of 2009 of the court of
Munsif, Giridih, there is no judgment and decree against the
appellant/defendant, so, the appellants do not press the instant Second
Appeal.
8. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 03rd of October, 2024
AFR/ Animesh
