M/S. Sahara India Commercial ... vs Uday Shankar Paul And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 799 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S. Sahara India Commercial ... vs Uday Shankar Paul And Ors on 15 July, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                                    2022:JHHC:43341



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                   F.A. No. 43 of 2012

               M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India and
               others                                    ...      ...     Appellants
                                       Versus
               Uday Shankar Paul and Ors.          ...       ...        Respondents
                                       ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate For the Resp. 1 to 9 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Resp. 10 to 15 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 16 to 18 : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate For the Resp. No. 19 : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Md. Saulat Daud, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate

---

99/15.07.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs has submitted that in the concerned Mouza Ranguni the total area was 415 acres which constitutes 16 annas. 6 annas would be 156 acres (approx.). Six Jamabandis were opened constituting 114 acres (approx.); one jamabandi was in the name of Haribol and the other 5 Jamabandis were in the name of the plaintiffs. Rent assessment case was initiated in connection with Haribol as well as the plaintiffs relating to each of 6 Jamabandis. The share of Haribol was only to the extent of 11.87 acres approximately and the remaining property of 156 acres minus 114 acres vested with the State on account of Sairat etc.

3. He has also submitted that a part of 102.13 acres (approx.) which remained with the plaintiffs in connection with five Jamabandis was acquired by BCCL in connection with which compensation was also paid and another part of the property was subject matter of Title Suit No. 26 of 2003 which was fought between Pauls and Dattas which ended in a compromise in the year 2016 by way of joint compromise and since this had taken place during the pendency of this First Appeal, the same has been sought to be brought on record by 2022:JHHC:43341

way of additional evidence. The learned counsel has submitted that the suit property was confined to 85 acres which was relatable to the advertisement issued by Sahara and the advertisement was the cause of action to file the case.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that at the time of filing written submissions, he would demonstrate from the records that the suit property was identifiable.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 7 SCC 107 (Smt. Dayamathi Bai Vs. Sri K.M. Shaffi) to submit that objection with regard to marking of documents and its proof and mode and manner of proof is required to be taken at the threshold and such an objection cannot be raised subsequently.

Rejoinder of the Appellants

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs have not given any response on the point of non-joinder of necessary parties which was raised by the appellants and recorded in paragraphs 2 and 4 of order dated 02.07.2025. He has further submitted that exhibit- 7 which has been referred to in paragraph 3 of order dated 02.07.2025 is to be read as a whole particularly in the light of paragraph 10 thereof wherein it has been mentioned that Jamabandi opened in the name of the plaintiffs was not correct and was not beyond doubt and since the interest of the State was involved, the State was made party in the proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to paragraph 5 of the order dated 02.07.2025 to submit that Form-K has not been produced at all and therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. He has also submitted that the proceedings under sections 5, 6 and 7 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act has also not been produced which could have clarified the entire matter. He has submitted that no response has been given to the arguments recorded in paragraph 7 of the order dated 02.07.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the Full Bench Judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of

2022:JHHC:43341

"Paritosh Maity Vs. Ghasiram Maity" reported in AIR 1987 Patna 167 (paragraphs 15 and 16).

9. With respect to the argument of the plaintiffs that they were granted compensation, the learned counsel has submitted that Exhibit- 9 was in favour of the plaintiffs, but compensation with respect to other land was also assessed in favour of Dattas vide Exhibit-G/2 to G/4.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to sections 63, 65, 74, 76 and 79 of the Evidence Act. He has submitted that section 63 of the Evidence Act deals with secondary evidence and section 65(e) deals with public document. He has referred to section 74(2) of the Evidence Act to submit that it deals with public record of private documents and section 76 deals with certified copies of public documents. He submits that revenue courts are the custodians of M- Forms and therefore, the certified copy from the revenue courts could have been exhibited as secondary evidence. There is no question of exhibiting certified copy of M-Forms from another court and get them exhibited in the present case. He has submitted that certified copy of M-Form received from another court cannot be said to be secondary evidence in the eyes of law and therefore, it could not have been admitted in evidence. This is over and above the fact that the M-Forms produced by the plaintiffs were never proved having been filed at the fag end of the trial.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 5 SCC 730 (J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani) (paragraphs 7 to 10). He has further relied upon the judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 [H. Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. A. Ramalingam] (paragraphs 11 to 14 and 17). Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others) (paragraphs 19 and 20) to submit that burden of proof is with the plaintiffs to prove their case which they have miserably failed to discharge.

2022:JHHC:43341

12. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 217 (Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another Vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. and others) (paragraph 16) and has submitted that the conduct of the plaintiffs has not been proper. However, so far as conduct of the plaintiffs is concerned, at the time of initial argument an argument was advanced that the cause of action was not proved which has been responded by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. This Court prima facie is of the view that the aforesaid judgement citied by the appellants on the point of conduct of the plaintiffs does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case which is arising out of a contested title suit.

13. With respect to the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs in connection with section 105 of Code of Civil Procedure that the interlocutory orders are required to be specifically challenged, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 455 (Thailammal and others Vs. Janardhan Raju and others) (paragraph 10) and submits that once the appeal is filed by the defendants against the decree of the trial court, they are entitled to challenge the correctness of any interlocutory order passed in the suit in such appeal by virtue of section 105 of Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that it is not necessary in such a case that they should prefer an independent appeal against the order dismissing an interlocutory application even if it is appealable.

14. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that they would prepare their short synopsis of arguments based on their arguments which have been advanced during the course of hearing and they would also refer to the judgments which have been cited before this Court during the course of hearing and also recorded in the various orders passed by this court recording their submissions made in open court. It will be open to the parties to incorporate specific arguments with regards to identity of the suit property and also

2022:JHHC:43341

advance their arguments with respect to such submissions. The needful be done by 18th July 2025.

15. Post this case on 22nd July 2025 to be taken up at 02.15 p.m.

16. On the next date arguments would be advanced so far as the pending interlocutory applications are concerned.

17. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, office is directed to call for the original records of Title Suit No. 76 of 2006 decided on 15th December 2011 from the court of Senior Civil Judge- I, Dhanbad upon deposit of special messenger cost by the appellants by tomorrow.

18. It is further agreed that calling for the record will not defer the hearing of this case as a copy of the record as received from the learned court is already available.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj