Jharkhand High Court
Sarbeshwar Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 24 February, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 219 of 2022
Sarbeshwar Prasad Sharma, aged about 70 years, son of Late Chandi
Prasad Sharma, resident of Village Yadavpur, Bakaspura, P.O. Yadavpur,
P.S. Barwadda, Govindur, District Dhanbad
... ... Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad
3. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad
5. The Circle Officer, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District
Dhanbad
6. The District Fishery Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad
... ... Defendants/Appellants/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate
---
th
10/24 February 2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment of the appellate court is a judgment of reversal. He has placed
the entire judgment before this Court of both the learned courts. He has
further submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration in the present case: -
I. Whether the 1st appellate court has wrongly reversed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court by making out
a third case that (i) the persons who had executed
'Arpannama' only had fractional interest upon the suit
property; (ii) Sruti Kirti Debya had other heirs and original
plaintiff was not the alone nominated 'Sebayat'; and (iii)
Arpannamas were not in terms of Section 72 of the Chhota
Nagpur Tenancy Act?
II. Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that
exhibit-3 was the conclusive proof possession as per Section
84(3) of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act?
III. Whether the learned lower appellate court was right in
discarding "exhibit 1/b and 1/c on the ground that they were
beyond pleadings" in view of the provisions contained in
Order 6, Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
IV. Whether the reversal of judgment and decree by the learned
appellate court is without meeting the reasoning of the trial
court?
V. Whether the appellate court was right in reversing the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the ground
that the 'deity' was not made party?
3. Considering the aforesaid submission and going through the
judgements passed by the learned courts, let this second appeal be
admitted for final hearing on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.
4. The respondents are the State authorities and are being represented
by the learned counsel for the State and accordingly no notice need be
issued.
5. Let the records be called for from the concerned courts.
6. Post this case for final disposal on 27.03.2025.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned
through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
