Ashok Bauri And Others vs Sunil Kumar Ghosh And Others ... ... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2931 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ashok Bauri And Others vs Sunil Kumar Ghosh And Others ... ... ... on 27 February, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Second Appeal No. 217 of 2020

            Ashok Bauri and others ...     ...            Defendants/Appellants
                                   Versus
            Sunil Kumar Ghosh and others ... ...       Plaintiff/Respondents
                                   ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

---

10/27.02.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Sushila Baurin has expired as back as in the year 1958 and finding to that effect has been arrived in Title Suit No. 51 of 1989 while deciding issue nos. VI, VII and VII in the said Title Suit. He submits that the learned courts have not properly considered the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 51 of 1989. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs in the present case was also deriving title through Sushila Baurin who had sold the property to the vendor of the plaintiffs in the year 1975. He has produced a copy of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 51 of 1989 for perusal of this Court at this stage. He has submitted that this second appeal be admitted after framing substantial questions of law .

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and upon going through the impugned judgments, this second appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law.

(i) Whether the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that in T.S. No. 51 of 1989 it was categorically held that Sushila Bauri had died in the year 1958 and the said finding was never reversed and in that event relying on the oral evidence to give a contrary finding is perverse and against the provisions of Evidence Act ?

(ii) Whether the proceeding in Title Suit No. 51 of 1989 has any bearing in the present case in as much as the plaintiffs or their vendors including Sushila Baurin were not party in the Title Suit No. 51 of 1989?

4. Let the records be called for from the concerned courts.

5. Since the respondents have already appeared, no notice need be issued.

6. Post this case on 26.03.2025 under the heading for 'Final disposal'.

7. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit