Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 684 (JHR)

Prabhat Kr. Hazam v. Rajeshwar Singh

2004-07-07

N.N.TIWARI

body2004
ORDER Nakendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 11 Additional District Judge. Dumka in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1996 passed by the Sub-Judge II Dumka in Title Suit No. 32 of 1985. 2. The defendants were the appellants-appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of their right and title over the suit land. described in Schedule-1 of the plaint. 3. The plaintiffs case was that Shiv Jogi Hazam being the sole owner of the land and house described in Schedule 1 was in possession and occupation of the said house. He with his wife and children used to live in the ground floor of the said pucca building and the first floor of the said building was let out to Narayan Singh on monthly rental basis and rent was being paid to Shiv Jogi Hazam and after his death to his widow Bimla Devi and his other heirs. According to the plaintiffs. Shiv Jogi Hazam died in the year 1970 leaving behind his widow, Bimla Devl and two daughter, Kausalya and Parbati. Who had jointly inherited and came in possession of the said property and realized the rent from the tenant including Narayan Singh. The defendants Shiv Shankar Hazam and Jagamath Hazam had taken the said suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 15/ per month at the end of January 1971, which was described in Schedule I of the plaint Defendant Shiv Shankar Hazam is own brother of defendant Jagarnath Hazam and they are also near relative of Jagdish Hazam and, Rajendra Hazam but none of them are in any way related to Shiv Jogi Hazam. Bimla Devi, widow of Shiv Jogi Hazam, however. Due to her ailing condition, could not come back to her house in July 1971 for permanent stay but she used to visit and realize rent from the tenants. Subsequently she did not find the defendants in the suit premises and the defendants also stopped paying rent. Then the plaintiff field the said suit. 4. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filling the -written statement stating, inter alia., that the suit as framed was not maintainable and same is barred by law of limitation. According to the defendants, the suit property belonged to one Kirtarath Hazam. Then the plaintiff field the said suit. 4. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filling the -written statement stating, inter alia., that the suit as framed was not maintainable and same is barred by law of limitation. According to the defendants, the suit property belonged to one Kirtarath Hazam. Shiv Jogi Hazam was not the son of Kirtarath Hazam and was not the sole owner and Basauri Raiyat. He was the son of Ram Swarath Hazam. Shivjogi Hazam died issueless in the year 1970 leaving behind Kirtarath Hazam who also died issueless. Thereafter his brother Balkishun Hazam died leaving behind his two sons namely Jiban Hazam and Lachmi Hazam, Jivan Hazam died in the year 1965 leaving behind a widow namely Ramdulari Devi and two sons namely Jagdish Hazam and Ram Chandra who are the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the present suit. The own brother Ram Sundar Hazam died after the death of Kirtarath Hazam leaving behind his only son Sheopujan Hazam who died in the year 1958 leaving behind two sons namely Shiva Shankar Hazam and Jagarnath Hazam who are the defendants No. 1 and 4. According to the defendants, after the death of Kirtarath Hazam, his properties were inherited by his surviving brothers Bal Krishna Hazam and Ram Sundar hazam. It is stated that after the death of Kirtarath Hazam his properties were inherited by the ancestors of the defendants and by Ramdulari Devi and Kanti Devi. The defendants denied that Shiv Jogi Hazam was ever in possession and occupation of the properties of Kirtarath Hazam. It is further stated that Shivjogi Hazam died in the year 1970. During his life time he brought Bimla Devi as concubine. She was not legally married wife of Shivjogi Hazam. It was stated that Bimla Devi brought two daughters born through her previous husband. As such Bimla Devi had no right, title and interest over the suit property. Defendants claimed that they were the tenants on monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. 5. On the said pleadings several issues were framed by the trial Court. While deciding the issues No. 4 and 5, which were main issues involved in this case, the trial Court considered earlier judgments marked as Ext. J and Ext. II and held that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit property. 15/-. 5. On the said pleadings several issues were framed by the trial Court. While deciding the issues No. 4 and 5, which were main issues involved in this case, the trial Court considered earlier judgments marked as Ext. J and Ext. II and held that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit property. The trial Court also decided the other issues in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit was not barred by limitation and was maintainable and the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The defendants then filed a regular appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court which was registered as Title Appeal No. 4 of 1997. The said appeal was finally came to be heard the decided by the II Additional District Judge. The lower appellate Court framed points for consideration : whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit property and whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for. The lower appellate Court also independently discussed the evidences both documentary and oral and came to the findings that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land and they are entitled to recovery of possession of the suit premises. 7. Mr. L.K. Lal learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised almost the same objections and grounds for assailing the judgment and decree of the Courts below. It was first contended that the plaintiffs suit has been decreed by the Court below without any legal basis and without any admissible evidence in support of the plaintiffs right, title and as such the findings of the Court below are vitiated in law. It was further contended that the lower appellate Court also committed serious error of law in not properly discharging its duty as the last Court of facts and concurring with and upholding the erroneous conclusion of the trial Court. 8. From perusal of the records I find that both the Courts below have duly considered the evidences, on record and their findings are based on admissible evidences, some of the evidences are previous judgments rendered in the litigation involving portions of the common land and on the same controversy. 8. From perusal of the records I find that both the Courts below have duly considered the evidences, on record and their findings are based on admissible evidences, some of the evidences are previous judgments rendered in the litigation involving portions of the common land and on the same controversy. Nothing material could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants on (he basis of which the said judgment and decree of the Courts below can be held to be vitiated in law. No substantial question of law could be indicated by the learned counsel for the appellants on which this appeal can be admitted. 9. In view of the abovesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.