Jharkhand High Court
Pranab Kumar Roy vs Kalyan Roy on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 221 of 2020
1. Pranab Kumar Roy
2. Chaitan Ravidas ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Kalyan Roy
2. Baidya Nath Roy
3. Gour Roy
4. Narain Pandey
5. Bishwajit Pandey
6. Madhavi Roy (Pandey)
7. Ajay Kumar Roy
8. Dugai Kumhar
9. Ganesh Kumhar
10.Sibu Kumhar
11.Nimai Ch. Pandey
12.Smt. Saraswati Devi (Pandey)
13.Ramashish Singh
14.Brij Mohan Nibas
15.Padma Roy Pandey
16.Madhawvi Roy Pandey
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
08/21.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
plaintiffs claimed the suit property by way of inheritance on the
ground that it belonged to their grand-father. The defendants appeared
and claimed that they were in possession of the property by virtue of a
Hukumnama. He has also submitted that Hukumnama was never
exhibited before the learned Court. He has referred to paragraph 49 of
the appellate Court's judgment to submit that admittedly no
Hukumnama was filed on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
learned Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree for
declaration of right, title and interest in respect of schedule- A land
and also entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession of schedule
- B land after removal of construction made thereon by the
defendants. The learned counsel submits that the decree was reversed
by the learned First Appellate Court by holding that the learned trial
Court in paragraph 58 gave a finding that the defendants failed to
produce the Hukumnama and has thus failed to prove their title and
such finding of the learned trial Court in paragraph 58 of the
judgment was not sustainable as the defendants were never obliged to
prove the Hukumnama unless the initial burden to prove the
Hukumnama as sham, fictitious and forged document was discharged
by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel submits that the defendants
claimed the property through Hukumnama and it was for the
defendants to exhibit the Hukumnama before the learned Court.
Admittedly, the Hukumnama was never exhibited and there was no
occasion for the plaintiffs to seek a declaration that the Hukumnama
was sham, fictitious or forged document.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that reasons
cited by the learned First Appellate Court to reverse the findings of the
learned trial Court are perverse and a substantial question of law arises
in the present case. He has referred to the substantial question of law
as framed in ground no. (C) of this memo of appeal which is as under:
"Whether the observation of the learned appellate court recorded
in para 52 of the impugned Judgement, to the effect that the
learned trial court has given erroneous findings of question of
title and recovery of possession in respect of Issue Nos. (II) and
(IV), is not sustainable in law because the learned appellate court
did not record any reason much less any justified reason to meet
out the findings of the learned trial court?"
5. Considering the submissions, this second appeal is admitted for
hearing on the aforesaid substantial question of law.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, has also
submitted that during the pendency of the First Appeal itself the
decree has already been executed in terms of Execution Case No. 02
of 2013 and the possession has been taken over by the appellants.
7. Issue notice to all the respondents through ordinary process, for
which requisites etc. be filed by 27th January 2025.
8. Let the records be called for from the learned Court concerned.
9. Post this case on 20th February 2025 in the supplementary cause
list awaiting service report.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
