Jharkhand High Court
Najma Khatoon And Others vs Mustari Begum And Others on 9 July, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 44 of 2019
Najma Khatoon and Others
...... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
Mustari Begum and Others
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
---
10/09.07.2025
1. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the
courts have failed to consider the oral evidence with respect to the
tenancy over the suit premises of that of P.W-1 and have primarily
based their finding with regard to landlord-tenant relationship on the
ground that no documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff.
He has submitted that tenancy can be proved even by oral evidence
and the law does not require issuance of rent receipt as a condition to
prove landlord-tenant relationship.
2. The learned counsel has also referred to Interlocutory
application being I.A. No. 6357 of 2025 to submit that the sole
defendant (Original respondent No.1) died on 27.04.2021 whereafter
the sole legal heir of the original respondent No.1 was substituted vide
order dated 16.12.2021. He submits that through the aforesaid
Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6357 of 2025 the appellants
are seeking to substitute the name of respondent No.1 namely Mustari
Begum with the purchaser of the suit premises as the purchaser is in
occupation of the suit premises. He submits that the details of the
subsequent purchaser has been mentioned in paragraph 11 of the I.A.
No. 6357 of 2025 and therefore, in absence of any legal heir or
successor of the sole contesting respondent, the person who has
purchased the property be made party to represent the estate of the
deceased respondent. For this purpose, the learned counsel has
referred to order 22 rule 4-A read with section 151 of CPC.
3. He submits that respondent No. 1 be deleted, the second appeal
be admitted and notice be issued to the person who is in possession of
the suit property whose name has been mentioned in paragraph 11 of
the aforesaid interlocutory application.
4. Having gone through the impugned judgment, this second
appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question
of law:-
Whether the findings recorded by both the courts that there
was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is
perverse on the alleged ground that the judgements have
been passed ignoring the oral evidence of PW-1 on the point
of landlord-tenant relationship?
5. Let the records be called for from the concerned courts.
6. Since the respondent No.1 has expired as per interlocutory
application being I.A. No. 6357 of 2025, let notice be issued to the
person named in paragraph 11 of the interlocutory application so that
the estate of respondent No.1 be represented by the person who is said
to be in possession of the suit property.
7. The requisite of service of notice under the ordinary process be
filed within a period of one week from today.
8. Post this case on 2nd September, 2025 awaiting service report.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
