Jharkhand High Court
Karmu Pahan vs Sanicharwa Pahan on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 175 of 2020
1. Karmu Pahan, aged about 27 years,
2. Sita Ram Munda, aged about 25 years,
3. Ramu Mudna, aged about 23 years
4. Ram Charan Pahan, aged about 21 years,
5. Ram Pahan, aged about 20 years,
6. Lakhan Pahan, aged about 18 years
7. Butan Pahan, aged about 13years
8. Umesh Pahan, aged about 11 years
9. Dashrath Pahan, aged about 10 years
10.Moti Pahan, aged about 8 years
All son of late Dayal Pahan @ Puran Pahan, resident of Village Tarang
(Torang), P.O. Hanhat, P.S. Kuru, District Lohardaga Appellants No. 7
to Appellants No. 10 are Minor sons of Dayal Pahan @ Puran Pahan
represented through their elder brother and natural guardian Karmu
Pahan Appellant No. 1.
11.Biras Mani Devi, aged about 30 years, daughter of late Dayal Pahan @
Puran Pahan, resident of Village Tarang (Torang) P.O. Hanhat, P.S.
Kuru, District Lohardaga ... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1. Sanicharwa Pahan, son of late Budhwa Pahan
2. Jagu Pahan, son of Late Sukra Pahan
3. Jalesh Pahan
4. Sumit Pahan
5. Sarju Pahan
6. Bablu Pahan
7. Manoj Pahan
Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 sons of late Ramdeo Pahan
8. Bashant Pahan
9. Hindu Pahan
10.Sukra Pahan
Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 sons of Late Mangra Pahan
11.Etwa Pahan, son of Late Somra Pahan
All resident of Village Torang, P.O. Hanhat, P.S. Kuru, District
Lohardaga ... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Sarju Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent :
---
st
09/21 January 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated
13.02.2020 (decree signed on 20.02.2020) passed by the learned District
Judge-II, Lohardaga whereby the Civil Appeal No. 04/2015 has been
dismissed. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Division) II, Lohardaga being Title Suit No. 38/2009.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
learned courts have not considered the admitted document on record i.e.
Exhibit-4 which is Circle Inspector's Report which supported the claim of
the original plaintiff Dayal Pahan @ Puran Pahan to be the sole son of
Madhwa Pahan who in turn was the sole son of Dukhuwa Pahan, who was
admittedly the recorded tenant . The learned counsel has submitted that in
the Circle Inspector's report (Exhibit-4), it was observed that the property
is recorded in the name of Madhwa Pahan, S/o Dukhuwa Pahan by
referring to Register-II. The learned counsel submits that the cause of
action arose when there was an error in the entry made in the recent
survey regarding record of rights.
4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the defendants
claimed that Dukhuwa Pahan had a son, namely, Rungtu Pahan who had
four sons, namely, Madhuwa Pahan, Budhuwa Pahan, Sukra Pahan and
Somra Pahan and Dayal Pahan-the plaintiff was son of Madhuwa Pahan.
The learned counsel submits that a new name, namely, Rungtu Pahan was
introduced in the genealogy who was said to be the son of Dukhuwa
Pahan as per the written statement. However, during the course of
arguments, it is not in dispute that Register-II which was referred to in the
Circle Inspector's Report (Exhibit-4) was never exhibited before the
learned court. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned
trial court did not appreciate Exhibit-4 properly and the fact that Register-
II was not exhibited before the learned court was not fatal to the case of
the plaintiff. He has also submitted that the plaintiff was claiming right,
title and interest with respect to the property and the defendants were also
claiming right, title and interest and both of them were claiming to be the
descendants of Dukhuwa Pahan and the only difference was that the
genealogy was not matching as stated above.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial
court has recorded that the plaintiff cannot deviate from the fact that he
was gotia of the defendants, but the appellate court has recorded that the
survey record of right was prepared in the name of ancestors of the
defendants only. The learned counsel has submitted that if the finding of
the appellate court is taken into consideration, then the right of the
plaintiff to the extent of even one-fourth share is taken away.
6. The learned counsel submits that the learned appellate court also
did not appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter properly and
accordingly the present appeal is fit to be admitted.
7. The learned trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not
been able to establish his sole right, title, interest and possession over the
disputed land. While deciding issue No. VII whether the plaintiff is
entitled to get relief as claimed, the learned court has decided that the
plaintiff has not been able to establish to be the sole legal heir of the
recorded tenant of the suit land.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this second
appeal is admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of
law: -
whether the appellate court was justified in recording that
the property was recorded only in the name of ancestors of
the defendants when the finding of the trial court was that
the plaintiff could not prove the case that he was the sole
legal heir of the recorded tenant, meaning thereby, that the
property devolved jointly in the name of the plaintiff as well
as the defendants.
9. Let notice be issued to the respondents through ordinary process for
which requisites be filed within two weeks' from today.
10. Let the records be called for from the concerned court.
11. Post this case on 19.03.2025 awaiting service report.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court
through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
