Mahabir Sao vs Parwati Devi & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2670 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mahabir Sao vs Parwati Devi & Anr on 14 February, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                          S.A. No. 177 of 2022

                Mahabir Sao                           ...       ...          Appellant
                                                 Versus
                Parwati Devi & Anr.                   ...          ...       Respondents
                                     ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate

---

08/14.02.2025 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that dispute regarding 3 decimals of land is involved in the present case. He submits that the plaintiff was claiming title by virtue of registered deed, on the other hand, the defendant was claiming title by virtue of oral gift followed by subsequent sale deed. He submits that the deed of the defendant was later in point of time.

2. He has stated that the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff but the learned Appellate Court has reversed the decree by observing that there was partition between the recorded tenants and that the recorded tenant namely Soman Sao was in exclusive possession of the property. He submits that the Appellate Court has reversed the decree on the basis of the finding which are not based on the case of the respective parties.

3. He has referred three substantial questions of law which are as follows:

(i) Whether finding of partition between recorded tenants by the learned Court below is beyond the pleadings of the parties and as such, the impugned judgment and decree based upon the said finding are illegal?

(ii) Whether exclusive possession of Saman Sao recorded in the khatiyan in the remarks column projects his exclusive title in contradiction to the entries made in the tenant's column?

(iii) Whether the exclusive possession projected in the khatiyan could have given sole title in favour of Saman Sao to sell lands including the suit lands in favour of Tulsi Sao from whom the defendants have purchased the suit land?

4. Considering the submissions, this Second Appeal is Admitted and will be heard on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

5. Issue notice to the respondents for which requisites under Ordinary Process be filed within a period of one week.

6. Let the records be called for from the Courts concerned.

7. Post this case on 03.04.2025 awaiting service report and record from the Court concerned.

8. Let the order be communicated to the Court concerned through "FAX/E-mail".

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Kunal