Jharkhand High Court
Maheshwar Prasad Singh And Others vs T.N. Ghosh And Others on 6 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 416 of 2018
Maheshwar Prasad Singh and others ... Plaintiff/Appellants
Versus
T.N. Ghosh and others ... ... Respondents
With
S.A. No. 448 of 2018
Maheshwar Prasad Singh and others ... Plaintiff/Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others
... ... Respondents
With
S.A. No. 452 of 2018
Maheshwar Prasad Singh and others ... Plaintiffs/Appellants
Versus
Mamta Singh and others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, A.C. to S.C. I
For the Resp. (T.N. Ghosh): Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate (through V.C.)
---
12/06.10.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Rajan Raj has
joined the proceeding online.
3. All these appeals arise out of same Title Suit and therefore they
are to be heard together.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
suit was decreed and the three defendants filed three separate appeals.
Ultimately each of the three appeals were allowed. One counter claim
filed by defendant nos. 6 to 8 was also allowed. The learned counsel
has submitted that the judgment and the decree passed by the learned
1st Appellate court in each of the appeals is apparently self-
contradictory as each of the defendants who filed the appeal were
claiming title over the property and all the civil appeals were allowed
by the learned 1st appellate court . The learned counsel has also
submitted that once British left India there was nobody to represent
Masonic Lodge as they had left India completely leaving behind the
structure over the landed property. The learned counsel has submitted
that the plaintiff remained in possession of the property through the
caretaker appointed by the landlord.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, these appeals
are admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
-
(i) "Whether learned appellate Court committed serious
errors of law in considering documents (Ext D series,
Ext E series, Ext G, Ext H series) brought by
Defendant No. 6 to 8 for recording a finding that the
Lodge was throughout in possession since 1919, after
the landlord of Jharia Estate had given suit land to T.
Luby, which was never pleaded and accordingly such
finding is perverse?
(ii) Whether the Learned appellate Court while passing
impugned judgment & decree committed serious
errors of law in accepting the factum of unregistered
Gift Deed dated 02.04.1919 propounded by Defendant
No. 6 to 8 for claiming suit property, which was never
brought on record or proved in accordance with law
and is of no legal sanctity as per provisions of section
123 of the Transfer of Property Act?
(iii) Whether the Learned Appellate Court while passing
impugned judgment and decree committed serious
errors of law in holding that suit is barred by the Law
of Limitation as it will be governed by Article 58 of
the Limitation Act, without examining that the relief of
recovery of possession of Schedule 'B' property was
prayed at the time of institution of the suit itself and
subsequently prayer for recovery of entire Schedule
property was made by amending the relief prayed for?
(iv) Whether the finding of the Appellate Court that suit is
bad for non-joinder of necessary party is sustainable
in law?
(v) Whether appellate court committed serious error of
law while passing impugned judgment & decree,
allowing title appeals being T.A. No. 13/13, T.A.
62/2012 & T.A. 59/2012 preferred by defendant no. 1-
5 (state), defendant no. 6-8 & defendant no. 11-13
respectively against Judgment dated 17th May, 2012
[decree sealed and signed on 28th May, 2012] in Title
Suit No. 21/1997 as same are contradictory and
legally unsustainable in law?
6. Mr. Rajan Raj has already entered appearance by filing
Vakalatnama in each of the cases on behalf of T.N. Ghosh therefore
no notice need be issued to the respondent T.N. Ghosh.
7. Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt accepts notice on behalf of
respondents-State of Jharkhand and authorities of the State of
Jharkhand and therefore no notice is required to be issued.
8. Issue notice to the other respondents for which requisites etc.
under speed post must be filed within a period of one week from
today.
9. Call for the records from the concerned courts on deposit of
special messenger cost by the appellants within a period of one week
from today.
10. Since the proceeding arising out of same Trial Court's
judgment, one set of trial court judgment will be sufficient.
11. Post these cases on 24.11.2025 under the heading for Final
Disposal.
12. Parties to prepare short synopsis of the case, list of dates and
the judgments which they seek to rely upon latest by 21.11.2025.
13. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
