Jharkhand High Court
Firangi Gareri. S/O Late Nanhua Gareri @ ... vs Nandhu Gareri on 27 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. Rev. No. 08 of 2022
1. Firangi Gareri. S/o Late Nanhua Gareri @ Nanhua Bhagat
2. Rajdev Pal
3. Raju Pal
4. Shyamdev
S. No. 2 to 4 are sons of Late Lakshman Gareri
5. Ajay Gareri
6. Awadh Pal
S. No. 5 & 6 are sons of Late Arjun Gareri
All residents of village-Kundarfi, P.O.- Kundari, P.S.-Lesliganj, District-Palamau
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Nandhu Gareri
2. Jagu Gareri
Both sons of Late Chhathu Gareri
3. Sunil Pal
4. Ashok Pal
S. No. 3 & 4 are sons of Late Jhumiya Devi
All residents of village-Tabera, P.O.- Kanda, P.S.- Bisharmpur, District-
Palamau
5. Dipu Pal, H/o Newri Gareri
6. Rampyari Pal
7. Rajnath Pal
8. Suneshwar Pal
S. No. 6 to 8 are sons of Dipu Pal
S. No. 5 to 8 are residents of village-Baghmarwa, P.O. & P.S.- Bishrampur,
Dist.-Palamau
9. Miss Tetri Garerin, W/o Umesh Pal & D/o Arjun Gareri, R/o Village-Ghordiha,
P.O. & P.S.- Rehala, Dist.-Garhwa
10. Miss Gudia Garerin, W/o Binay Pal & D/o Arjun Gageri, R/o Village-Taali, P.O.
& P.S.- Nawabazaar, Dist.- Palamau
S. No. 9 & 10 are also Kundari, P.O. & P.S. Lesliganj, District-Palamau
... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. Dilip Kr Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents :
------
Order No. 05 / Dated : 27.02.2025.
Heard, learned counsel for the review petitioner(s).
1. The instant Civil Review petition is filed for review of the order/ judgment
passed by this Court in S.A. No. 16 of 1989(R), whereby and whereunder
concurrent finding of facts by both the learned Courts below were set aside and
the second appeal was allowed by this Court.
2. Petitioners are the original defendants in a suit brought against the
respondents-plaintiffs for declaration that "Bazidawa" being Deed No. 991 dated
16.02.1961 executed by Chhatu Gareri in favour of the Nanhak Gareri was a
fraudulent and forged document and as such, it did not confer any right, title and
interest upon them and for declaration that the suit land was in possession of the
plaintiff(s) as their raiyati land.
3. This Court relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in S. P.
Chinnathambiar [(1953) 2 MLJ 387, 391], Hutchi Gowder Vs Bheema Gowder
[(1959) 2 MLJ 324, 337] and also Thayyil Mammo Vs. Kottiath Ramuni, AIR
1966 SC 337 held that a deed of release does not operate as a conveyance of
property to a stranger. As such, such a deed of relinquishment could not operate
as a conveyance and it only extinguishes the title of the party(s) who executes the
deed of relinquishment, thereby the party having antecedent right over it, will
perforce acquire title over it. In this case, the defendants had no antecedent right
over the property, therefore, it was held that the deed of relinquishment
(Bazidawa) did not convey the title.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the review petitioners that
there was an error of record in the judgment which has been observed in para 22
that the parties were neither co-owner nor co-sharer of the property and not
related with the plaintiffs.
5. This assertion is, however, not supported by any evidence and this review
petition seeks to enter into merit of case under the guise of a review, which is
impermissible.
6. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in the civil review petition.
Accordingly, the instant civil review stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
