Jharkhand High Court
Rana Bachan Singh vs Ramjanam Yadav @ Ram Janam Yadav Son Of ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 234 of 2018
1. Rana Bachan Singh, age about 65 years, son of Late Rana Kedar
Nath Singh @ Late Kedar Nath Singh
2. Rana Bageshwari Singh, age about 68 years son of Late Rana
Kedar Nath Singh Both resident of village+Post- Belhath, P.S.-Kandi,
District-Garhwa
... Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
3. Rana Ashok Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Late Rana Ram
Naresh Singh
4. Rana Lila Singh, age about 35 years, Son of Late Rana Ram Naresh
Singh
appellant no. 3 and 4 are resident of village+Post- Belhath, P.S.-
Kandi, District-Garhwa.
5. Sheela Devi @ Shila Devi, age about 33 years, daughter of Late
Rana Ram Naresh Singh, wife of Satrughan Singh, resident of village-
Hurka, P.O-Panhar, P.S.-R. Kotha, District-Rohatas (Bihar)
6. Urmila Devi, age about 30 years, daughter of Late Rana Ram
Naresh Singh, wife of Surendra Singh, resident of village-Darua,
P.O.-Darua, P.S.- Hussainabad, District-Palamau.
7. Maina Devi, age about 28 years, daughter of Late Rana Ram
Naresh Singh, wife of Jitendra Singh, resident of village-Gamhar
Bigha, P.O.-kamgarpur, P.S.-Hussainabad, District-Palamau.
8. Buchi Devi, age about 26 years, daughter of Late Rana Ram Naresh
Singh, wife of Anil Singh, resident of village-Jhargode, P.O.-
Jhargode, P.S. Hussainabad, District-Palamau.
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Ramjanam Yadav @ Ram Janam Yadav son of Ram Prasad Yadav,
resident of village+Post-Belhath, P.S.-Manjhiaon, District-Garhwa.
... ... Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent
2. Smt. Jayutri @ Smt. Jautri Devi, wife of Shri Karamdeo Ram,
resident of village- Kharaundha, P.O.- Belhath, P.S.- Manjhiaon,
District- Garhwa.
... ... Defendant/Respondent/Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
---
10/16.01.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
31.03.2018 and decree dated 10.04.2018 passed by learned District
Judge-I, Garhwa whereby the Title Appeal No. 01 of 2014 was
dismissed and the judgment dated 19.12.2013 and decree dated
07.01.2014 (decree signed on 10.01.2014) passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Junior Division-II, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 1 of 2005 has been
confirmed.
3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 10.07.2023
indicating the following substantial question of law:
"Whether both the courts below have committed perversity by
not specifying the relief granted by it to the plaintiff and merely
mentioning that the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff
though one of the prayer is full cost of the suit to be awarded to
the plaintiff but in the operative portion passing the contrary
order that both the parties will bear the cost of the suit without
mentioning that the said relief no. V has not been granted to the
plaintiff?"
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Title
Suit No. 1 of 2005 was filed for multiple reliefs which is apparent
from the decree passed by the learned trial Court. He has also referred
to the fact that the judgment was passed by simply stating that the suit
is decreed in terms of the relief prayed. He has also submitted that in
the prayer of the suit, full cost of the suit was prayed for, but the
operative portion is contrary, inasmuch as, it has been stated that both
the parties will bear the cost.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that
issue nos. 7 and 8 with regard to payment of Rs. 46,000/- was decided
vide paragraph 7 of the trial Court's judgment in which it was recorded
that the amount was paid and the trial Court recorded that no judgment
be passed on the same, but as per the decree even the prayer that the
defendant nos. 1 to 3 be directed to receive the balance consideration
amount of Rs. 46,000/- from the plaintiff has been allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that
the learned Trial Court ought to have enumerated the final relief which
was granted and to the extent it was granted. He submits that the
decree which has been prepared is inconsistent with the judgment
passed. He submits that even the appellate Court has not formulated
the relief granted and the appeal has been simply dismissed. The
learned counsel submits that the question of law be answered and the
matter be remitted to the learned trial Court for passing an appropriate
order with regard to the relief which has been granted to the concerned
party. He submits that the learned Court may seek assistance of the
respective parties.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
appellants could have applied for amendment of the decree, if there
was any grievance.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going
through the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts,
this Court finds that following reliefs were prayed for in the suit:
"I. It be adjudicated and declared upon that the plaint has been
coming in right, title and possession of the suit land since
9.6.2004 having absolute right and title for the same and the
defendant no. 1 to 3 had/have neither right nor title nor
possession over suit land or any piece of the same and as such
their subsequent transferee defendant no. 4 of the part of the suit
land acquired nothing by virtue of collusive paper transaction i.e.
deed no. 9381 dt. 5.11.2004 and the same is void ab initio. The
plaintiff was/is/will always ready and willing to perform his part
of the contract and the defendant no. 1 to 3 who are not
performing the part of the contract.
II. The defendant no.1 to 3 be directed to receive the balance
consideration money of Rs. 46,000/- from the plaintiff and to hand
over the original transferred deed no. 3539 dt. 9.6.2004 to him
within stipulated period failing which the same be ordered to be
delivered through the process of the court.
III. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit land be confirmed
and if he found dispossessed from the suit land or from any piece
of the same he be ordered to be put in possession of the same
through the process of the court.
IV. The defendants be restrained from disturbing the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by issuing mandatory
injunction against them.
V. Full cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
VI. The plaintiff be awarded by other relief or reliefs for which he
may be deemed to be entitled."
9. The judgment passed by the learned Trial Court reveals that as
many as 11 issues were framed, all of which were taken into
consideration and ultimately, in the final order it was directed that the
suit is decreed and consequently, the decree has been prepared
enumerating the entire relief as prayed for by the plaintiff.
10. This Court finds that the learned appellate Court has dismissed
the appeal and has not recorded anything further with regards to the
relief. The learned appellate Court recorded that the decree requires no
interference and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court and the
cross-objection was dismissed on contest.
11. This Court finds that upon going through the judgment passed
by the learned trial Court it cannot be said that all the reliefs as prayed
for by the plaintiff were decided in favour of the plaintiff and one such
example is the decision in connection with issue nos. 7 and 8 decided
vide paragraph 7 of the judgement wherein it was recorded that an
amount of Rs. 46,000/- was already paid and the said issue was
ultimately not required to be decided. Further, as pointed out in the
substantial question of law itself, the plaintiff had prayed for full cost
of the suit but in the operative portion, it was directed that both the
parties will bear the cost. Accordingly, decreeing the suit in toto is in
conflict with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
12. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court having not
drawn specific conclusion with respect to each relief as prayed in the
suit by referring to the findings recorded with respect to each issue has
committed serious error resulting in passing of decree which is
contrary to its findings/order. Thus, the substantial question of law is
answered as follows: -
both the courts have committed perversity by not specifying the
relief granted by it to the plaintiff and merely mentioning that the
suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Such decree included
decree with respect to one of the prayers of award of full cost of the
suit but in the operative portion of the judgement it has been
ordered that both the parties will bear the cost of the suit.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the decree
drawn by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law and is accordingly set-aside. On the same count, the decree
prepared by the learned appellate Court confirming the decree of the
learned Trial Court also cannot be sustained which is also set-aside.
14. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court only for the
purposes of preparation of fresh decree in consonance with the
findings/directions/order recorded in the judgement with respect to
each issue which is required to be prepared with the assistance of the
parties. The parties to appear before the learned trial Court on
03.03.2025 at 11.00 am.
15. This second appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observations
and directions.
16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
17. Let the records received from the learned Court be sent back to
the learned Court concerned forthwith.
18. Let this judgement be communicated to the learned Court
concerned through 'FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
