Jharkhand High Court
Raghubans Narayan Singh & Ors vs Kedar Ram & Ors on 7 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 58 of 1991 (R)
--------
Raghubans Narayan Singh & Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Kedar Ram & Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
Second Appeal No. 69 of 1991 (R)
--------
Kedar Ram & Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Parmila Devi & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Tirtha Nandan Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kundar Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
: Mr. Tirtha Nandan Jha, Advocate
--------
th
Order No. 42/ Dated: 07 July, 2025
I.A. No. 2931 of 2016 [in Second Appeal No.58 of 1991 (R)] :-
1. Heard learned for the appellants as well as respondents.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the court
below illegally decreed the suit for confirmation of possession.
From the petition dated 13.05.1983 filed by the decree holder in
Execution Case No. 17 of 1982, it is apparent that the case of the
plaintiffs, in their plaint for confirmation of possession, is false and
consequently, the decree passed therein is perverse and illegal as
plaintiffs themselves admitted that they are not in possession of the
suit property and as such this admission alone is sufficient to
demolish the case of the plaintiffs.
3. It is further submitted that plaintiffs/respondents has claimed right,
title and confirmation of possession over the suit land, however,
the Execution Case No. 17 of 1982 was filed by the
plaintiffs/respondents before the Court of Additional Munsif,
Palamau at Daltonganj, wherein the plaintiffs have claimed
recovery of possession of the suit property from the
judgment/debtor (appellant herein). Earlier Second Appeal No. 66
of 1981 (R) was preferred by the appellants which was disposed of
remanding the case for decision on certain points and thereafter,
this fresh second appeal has been filed. The above admission of the
plaintiffs being not in possession is most vital piece of evidence
which has to be accepted in this second appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
opposed the aforesaid contentions and has submitted that the
application of the petitioners and the prayer made therein does not
come within the ambit of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and the
said admission is not going to have conclusive proof of the fact of
the matter involved in this appeal, therefore, this petition is out
rightly liable to be rejected.
5. Considering the facts and the nature of evidence intended to be
adduced as additional evidence does not appear to be fall within
the ambit of Order 41 Rule 27. Therefore, this petition being I.A.
No. 2931 of 2016 is dismissed.
I.A. No. 2014 of 2024 [in Second Appeal No.69 of 1991 (R)] :-
6. The present interlocutory application has been filed for substitution
of legal heirs of the deceased appellant No.1(iii) namely
Kameshwar Ram after setting aside the abatement order and
condoning the delay in filing the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant
No.1(iii) namely Kameshwar Ram has died on 08.12.2016 leaving
behind his five daughters as his legal heirs/representatives.
8. It is further submitted that the proposed legal heirs of the deceased
appellant No.1(iii) came to know on 10.02.2024 about the
pendency of this second appeal. Therefore, there has been no
negligence and latches on the part of the appellants in filing this
substitution petition. Hence, the legal heirs/representatives of
deceased appellant No.1(iii) may be permitted to be substituted in
his place after setting aside the abatement order and condoning the
delay in filing substitution petition.
9. Considering the submission and reasons of learned counsel for the
appellants, the order of abatement is set aside and delay in filing
the substitution petition is hereby condoned subject to payment of
a cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellants to the respondents.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2014 of 2024 is allowed and the legal
heirs/representatives of appellant No.1(iii) are permitted to be
substituted in his place.
11. Issue notice to newly impleaded appellants under registered cover
with A/D as well as through ordinary process for which requisites
etc. must be filed with two weeks.
I.A. No. 8106 of 2023 [in Second Appeal No.69 of 1991 (R)] :-
12. The present interlocutory application has been filed for
substitution of legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.4 namely
Babu Yadubansh Singh @ Yadubansh Singh after setting aside the
abatement order and condoning the delay in filing the present
petition.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent
No.4 namely Babu Yadubansh Singh @ Yadubansh Singh has died
on 19.08.2008 leaving behind his legal heirs/representatives whose
details are mentioned in paragraph No.3 of this interlocutory
application.
14. It is further submitted that the appellants came to know on
22.08.2023 about the death of respondent No.4. Therefore, there
has been no negligence and latches on the part of the appellants in
filing this substitution petition. Hence, the legal
heirs/representatives of deceased respondent No.4 may be
permitted to be substituted in his place after setting aside the
abatement and condoning the delay and filing substitution petition.
15. Considering the submission and reasons of the learned counsel for
the appellants, the order of abatement is set aside and delay in
filing substitution petition is hereby condoned subject to payment
of a cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellants to the respondents.
16. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8106 of 2023 is allowed and the legal
heirs/representatives of appellant No.4 are permitted to be
substituted in his place.
17. Vakalatnama on behalf of newly impleaded legal heirs i.e. 4(a) to
4(d) has already been filed and the same is on record.
Second Appeal Nos. 58 of 1991 (R) & 69 of 1991 (R):-
18. List these cases on 22.07.2025.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Arpit/
