Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 865 (JHR)

Ranthu Oraon v. Hari Oraon

2007-11-22

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
JUDGMENT N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. The defendants are the appellants/plaintiffs. 2. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Gumla, in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1999, whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Gumla in Title Suit No. 13 of 1994. 3. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1994, praying relief for declaration that they have got right title and interest over the suit land and that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 18 are the nearest agents of Late Temba Oraon. 4. The subject matter of the suit land is the lands of R.S. Kaimi Khata No. 28, Bhuihari lands of R.S. Khata No. 105 recorded under R.S. Khewat No. 6 and the purchased lands of Khata No. 94 recorded under R.S. Khewat No. 4/6 of village Beti, P.S. Ghaghra, district Gumla. 5. Plaintiffs case is that the said R.S. Khata No. 28 was recorded in the names of Temba Oraon, Situwa Oraon, both sons of Lohra Mahto and Budhu Mahto, son of Birsai Mahto. Bhuihari lands of R.S. Khata No. 105 was recorded in the name of Temba Oraon and the land of Khata No. 104, Khewat No. 5/5 was recorded in the name of Temba Oraon, Situwa Oraon and Budhu Oraon. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the land of R.S. Khata No. 94 was recorded in the names of Temba Oraon and Situwa Oraon while the lands of Khata No. 28 was fully described in Schedule A, lands of Khata No. 105, 104 and 94 were described in Schedule 'B' and lands of Khata No. 20 were described in Schedule 'C of the plaint. 6. According to the plaintiffs, R.S. Khata Nos. 28, 105, 104 and 94 were recorded in the names of Temba Oraon and Situwa Oraon. sons of Lohra Mahto, though Situwa Oraon was not the son of Lohra Oraon. Temba Oraon was the only son of Lohra Oraon. which is evident from the Cadestral Survey Khewat and Bhuihari Register. The said Situwa Oraon was the son of the sister of the mother of Temba Oraon. During revisional survey operation, Situwa Oraon was residing with Temba and was helping and looking after the domestic affairs of Temba Oraon is a servant. which is evident from the Cadestral Survey Khewat and Bhuihari Register. The said Situwa Oraon was the son of the sister of the mother of Temba Oraon. During revisional survey operation, Situwa Oraon was residing with Temba and was helping and looking after the domestic affairs of Temba Oraon is a servant. He fraudulently got his name entered in the R.S. record of rights along with the name of Temba Oraon. However, Situwa Oraon had never claimed any right title over the said land during his lifetime, nor he was in possession over the lands. When it was detected that his name was also included in the said R.S. record of rights, Situwa Oraon had executed a declaration that entry of his name in the said records was wrong and he shall have no claim over the lands. After the death of Temba Oraon, the plaintiffs, being the nearest agnates and legal representatives, according to their customary law, inherited the suit lands and came in peaceful possession thereof. The defendants have got no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. However, in the month of May, 1973. the respondents suddenly started laying false claim over the suit land, disputing the plaintiffs right, title and possession. 7. The dispute led to a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC, being Misc. Case No. 1070 of 1973. In the said proceeding, the plaintiffs were found in possession. 8. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 by fling their written statement. It was stated, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The defendants, however, admitted the position of the survey records and asserted that after the death of Temba Oraon, schedule 'C land devolved upon Situwa Oraon by way of reversionary right and the defendants, being the descendants, are in peaceful possession over the same. At the time of death. Temba Oraon left behind two widows, namely, Bhakho and Gaino. Bhakho was living with the defendants whereas Gaino remarried with one Tiwari Oraon and she lost her rights, as widow of Temba Oraon. Bhakho died in the year 1992-93 and her last rites were performed by the defendants. According to the customary law of Oraon, widows are not entitled to inherit the properties of their husbands, rather they are entitled for maintenance. Bhakho died in the year 1992-93 and her last rites were performed by the defendants. According to the customary law of Oraon, widows are not entitled to inherit the properties of their husbands, rather they are entitled for maintenance. It has been asserted that Temba Oraon and Situwa Oraon were own brothers and they were sons of Lohra Oraon. After the death of Temba Oraon the plaintiffs started claiming their right, title. The plaintiffs have got no cause of action and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 9. On the basis of the said pleadings, the learned trial Court framed fallowing issues: i. Is the suit as framed maintainable? ii. Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for the suit? iii. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of parties? iv. Is the suit barred by limitation.? v. whether the plaintiffs are the nearest agnates of Late Temba Oraon and if so, had they inherited the suit land and are entitled to the relief sought for? vi. whether Situwa Oraon ancestor of the defendants was the close agnates of Late Temba Oraon and as such Situwa Oraon inherited the properties of Temba Oraon after his death? vii. to what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled? 10. In course of trial, both the parties adduced-their oral as well as documentary evidences. The learned trial Court, after thorough discussion and consideration of the evidences on record, decided all the factual issues against the defendants and recorded the following findings: a. It could not be established that Situwa Oraon and Temba Oraon were full brothers and that the defendants belong to the family of Temba Or. b. the plaintiffs are the nearest agnates of Temba Oraon and they inherited the suit land on his death: c. the suit is not barred by limitation: d. the suit is not bad for non-joinder of party: e. the plaintiffs have got cause of action: f. the suit is maintainable and the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as claimed. Learned trial Court, thus, decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiffs' right, title and interest over the suit land. 11. The defendants preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court before the District Judge, which was registered as T.A. No. 14 of 1999. Several grounds were raised in the appeal. Learned trial Court, thus, decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiffs' right, title and interest over the suit land. 11. The defendants preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court before the District Judge, which was registered as T.A. No. 14 of 1999. Several grounds were raised in the appeal. Learned lower appellate Court heard both the parties and after a detailed discussion of the facts, evidences and materials appearing on record concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court and held that: (i) the plaintiffs have proved that they are the nearest agnates of Temba Oraon. The defendants are not his nearest agnates: (ii) Situwa Oraon and Temba Oraon were not the full brothers. They were not also the sons of the same mother, rather they were sons of different mothers: (iii) they were also not the sons of Lohra Mahto: (iv) learned lower appellate Court, thus, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 12. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel ,appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below on the ground that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidences available on record and have recorded erroneous finding of facts and that in spite of their concurrent finding of facts, this Court may interfere with the judgment and decree. 13. After. hearing learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants and on meticulous scrutiny of the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below, I find no substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned Courts below have discussed the facts and evidences on record in detail and they have recorded their findings on the basis of the evidences and materials on record. I find no ground, giving rise to any substantial question of law. Learned Counsel tried to assail the judgment and decree on factual grounds, which have been concurrently found in favour of the plaintiffs. Concurrent findings of facts even erroneous cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 14. I, therefore, find no merit in this second appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.