Jharkhand High Court
Balkishun Ram And Another vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 20 March, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 380 of 2017
Balkishun Ram and Another ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 4 to 9 : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate
and 11 to 14 Mr. Sushant Kr. Sinha, Advocate
---
th
15/20 March 2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the other private
respondents in this case.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the original
defendant Nos. 3 to 7 has submitted that before the learned trial court a
specific issue was framed with regard to the point as to whether the suit of
the plaintiffs was barred by virtue of provision of Specific Relief Act.
Such issue was issue No. V and the said issue was decided against the
plaintiffs vide paragraph 22 of the said judgment. He has submitted that
the appellate court did not frame any issue in connection with issue No. V
and ultimately the judgment of the learned trial court was upheld. He has
submitted that no such substantial question of law has been framed by this
Court also as to whether the suit was barred in view of the provision of
Specific Relief Act. He submits that even if the substantial question of law
already framed is answered in favour of the appellants, the finding in
connection with issue No. V will still be an impediment in granting any
decree in favour of the appellants. The learned counsel has also submitted
that the property was settled in favour of the private respondents by the
State way back in the year 1960-61 and 1986-87 and the settlement has
not been challenged by the plaintiffs in the suit apparently on account of
the fact that such challenge to settlement was barred by limitation. He has
further submitted that there is a finding of the learned courts that the
private respondents have been in possession of the property since the date
of settlement and therefore the cause of action to challenge the settlement
arose within a period of three years from 1960-61 and 1986-87, but the
plaintiff did not take any step and did not challenge the settlement as the
suit would not have sustained in spite of the finding that the private
respondents are in possession of the property.
4. The learned counsel for the original defendant Nos. 3 to 7 has relied
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR
2010 SC 211, paragraph 19 to submit that it has been held that in case
where according to the plaintiff, the transaction is void and voidable and
the transaction has taken place by virtue of an instrument and the plaintiff
cannot claim relief unless such an instrument is set-aside, then under such
circumstances it has to be challenged within a period of 3 years from the
date of knowledge. In absence of seeking such a relief to set-aside the
instrument and in case it is left outstanding, the relief would be barred by
the provisions of Section 31 of the Special Relief Act. He has also
submitted that even if the best case of the plaintiff is taken into
consideration, the settlement through Hukumnama is not followed by
immediate issuance of rent receipts and there is a substantial gap of time
and in the present case, if the English calendar is taken into consideration,
the exhibit-2 and 2/a, which are the two Zamindari rent receipts, could at
best be of the year 1951 and 1954 as submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants. The learned counsel has also
submitted that the deposition of P.W.-1 also reveals that he stated that the
Hukumnama was issued in samvat 1946 which would be equivalent to
English calendar 1889 by deducting 57 years.
5. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents has raised a point that
the suit was barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, inasmuch as,
the plaintiffs did not pray for setting-aside of the settlement done in favour
of original defendant nos. 3 to 7. It has also been found that the issue in
connection with Specific Relief Act has been decided by the learned trial
Court vide issue no. V against the plaintiffs, but the learned first appellate
Court has not addressed this issue at all and no point of determination was
framed on this point.
6. At this, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
additional substantial question of law may be framed with regard to
Specific Relief Act. He has submitted that the law is well-settled that
once the State had no title, then all the subsequent acts fall and therefore,
according to him there was no need to challenge the settlement made by
the State in favour of the original defendant nos. 3 to 7.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
representing the original defendant nos. 3 to 7 has submitted that
admittedly the possession is with the private respondents and therefore,
unless the settlement made by the State was set-aside by virtue of any
prayer made to that effect, it cannot be said that suit was not barred by
Specific Relief Act. He has also submitted that this question may be
decided.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) SCCR 499 to
submit that during the course of hearing if any substantial question of law
arises, the same can be framed and decided.
9. Considering the submissions, this appeal will be also heard on the
following additional substantial question of law :-
"Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of sections 31 and
34 of the Specific Relief Act?"
10. The learned counsel for the parties have commenced their
arguments on the aforesaid substantial question of law . The learned
counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment reported in 2006
(3) JLJR 164 (SC) (paragraphs 15 and 16). On the other hand , the
learned counsel for the original defendant nos. 3 to 7 has relied upon the
judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 211 (paragraph 19) and has submitted
that the settlement was not void ab-initio but it was voidable and
therefore, in absence of any challenge to the settlement, no relief could be
granted to the plaintiffs. He has also submitted that there are findings that
the original defendant nos. 3 to 7 are in possession of the property by
virtue of settlement.
11. The matter is directed to be posted on 28th March 2025 for further
hearing.
12. Learned counsel for the parties have also undertaken to file short
synopsis of arguments on the basis of the arguments advanced during the
court proceedings on the substantial questions of law already framed and
also on the substantial question of law which has been framed today by
26.03.2025 after serving copy on the other side. It will be open to the
respondents to refer to additional judgments over and above whatever has
been cited during the Court proceedings.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/Pankaj
