Shankar Modak vs Dilip Modak
2024 Latest Caselaw 9882 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shankar Modak vs Dilip Modak on 4 October, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Second Appeal No. 09 of 2024

1. Shankar Modak, aged about 47 years
2. Dibakar Modak, aged about 45 years
3. Manoranjan Modak, aged about 43 years
        All are son of Rakhohari Modak, resident of Chhota Gamharia,
PO+PS-Gamharia, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand
                     ...  ...     ...   ...     ...   ...   Appellants
                          Versus
1. Dilip Modak, son of Late Patal Modak
2. Ajit Modak, son of Late Patal Modak
3. Ashok Modak, son of Late Patal Modak
4. Samir Modak, son of Late Bhim Modak
        All are resident of Chhota Gamharia, PO+PS-Gamharia,
District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand
5. Bhanumati Modak, wife of Arbind Modak, daughter of Late
Rakhohari Modak, resident of Hensalbil, PO+PS-Potka, District-East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand
6. Malati Modak, wife of Kisto Modak, daughter of Late Rakhohari
Modak, resident of Bundu, PO+PS-Bundu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
7. Lakhi Modak, wife of Anup Modak, daughter of Late Rakhohari
Modak, resident of village Barabazar, PO+PS-Barabazar, District-
Purulia, West Bengal
8. Sudha Modak, wife of Pintu Modak, daughter of Late Rakhohari
Modak, resident of village Jaipur, PO+PS-Jaipur, District-Purulia,
West Bengal                                 ... ...       ...  Respondents
                          ---------

CORAM:               HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                          ---------
For the Appellants        :       Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                  Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate.
For Resp. Nos.1-4         :       Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate
                                  Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.5-8         :       Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate
                          ---------

08/Dated: 04.10.2024

Heard counsel for the appellants.

2. Both the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court have

held against the appellants/defendants and declared the title of the

respondents/plaintiffs/predecessors of plaintiffs with regard to 1 and

1½ decimals of land, located in Plot No. 648 and Plot No. 649 in R.S.

Khata No. 108.

3. I have carefully considered the judgment of the trial court and

the First Appellate Court. The findings recorded by the said courts are based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be

perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its

restrictive jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

4. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Second Appeal. It is

accordingly, dismissed.

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) APK/RK