Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 617 (JHR)

Ram Das Oraon v. Fagu Oraon

2018-03-15

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants and appellants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2012 passed by the District Judge-XVIII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 80 of 2005 whereby and where under the learned District Judge-XVIII, Ranchi dismissed the said appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Khunti in Title Suit No. 13 of 1994. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land has jointly been recorded in the names of Bono Oraon son of Jitu Oraon and Soma Oraon son of Dorga Oraon, during the revisional settlement. It is the case of the plaintiffs that both Bono Oraon and Soma Oraon are agnates of the plaintiffs. Soma Oraon died issueless hence, he was succeeded by Bono Oraon to the exclusion of everybody else. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that Bono Oraon died leaving behind his sons namely Ghasi Oraon and Mochi Oraon. Mochi Oraon died issueless and Ghasi Oraon succeeded him as the sole surviving heir and successor. Ghasi Oraon has three sons, the Plaintiff No. 1 namely Ram Das Oraon, plaintiff No. 2 Birsa Oraon and Proforma Defendant No. 5 Bharat Oraon and according to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 5 are in possession of the suit land. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are no way related to Soma Oraon and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 do not have any right, title and interest or possession over of the suit land. As the defendant raised a false and frivolous dispute over the suit land and in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr PC rule was made absolute against them and as the defendant threatened to take forcible possession over the suit land hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The contesting defendants besides the usual defence have pleaded that Soma Oraon did not die issueless nor his interest devolved upon Bono Oraon. According to the defendant Soma Oraon has two sons namely Etwa and Lumba. Lumba has one son namely Ravi. Ravi died leaving behind his son Lohra who is defendant No.4. The contesting defendants besides the usual defence have pleaded that Soma Oraon did not die issueless nor his interest devolved upon Bono Oraon. According to the defendant Soma Oraon has two sons namely Etwa and Lumba. Lumba has one son namely Ravi. Ravi died leaving behind his son Lohra who is defendant No.4. Etwa died leaving behind his son Puran who was the defendant No. 1 in the suit and Puran has three sons Fagu, Haribol and Sita who on the date of the decree of the Title Suit No. 13 of 1994 were mentioned as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The defendants admitted the pleadings of the plaintiffs to the extent that the genealogy of descendants of Bono Oraon as mentioned in the plaint is correct. It is the case of the defendants that after the death of Soma Oraon, his legal heirs succeeded to his share over the property and they are paying separate rent to the present Mundari Khuntkatti landlords whose interest has not been vested in the State as yet. It is further the case of the defendants that the proceeding vide M. Case No. 513 of 1976 was started by Lohra Oraon the great grandson of Soma Oraon against Mochi Oraon and one of the son of Bono Oraon in respect of suit plots No. 963 and in that proceeding Mochi has admitted in his show-cause that there has been no partition by metes and bounds among the heirs of recorded tenants and this admission is clear proof of all the facts that the defendants are the heirs of Soma Oraon. Further in that proceeding Mochi Oraon did not take the plea that Soma Oraon died issueless and ultimately, the said proceeding was ended on 07.02.1977 against Mochi Oraon. It is further the case of the defendants that the suit property is the joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties, the learned trial Court altogether framed twelve issues the main issues being issue Nos. (vii), (x) and (xi) which are as under :- (vii) Whether genealogy given in the plaint is correct? (x) Whether plaintiffs have got title over suit land? (xi) Whether plaintiffs and pro-forma defendant are in possession over suit land? 4. (vii), (x) and (xi) which are as under :- (vii) Whether genealogy given in the plaint is correct? (x) Whether plaintiffs have got title over suit land? (xi) Whether plaintiffs and pro-forma defendant are in possession over suit land? 4. In support of their case, the plaintiffs altogether examined five witnesses besides proving the Khatian of Mouja Gutuhatu related to Khata No. 51 and 88. From the side of the defendants also five witnesses were examined besides proving the land revenue receipts, copy of the order in a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC between the ancestors of the parties and other documents. After taking into consideration the evidences both, oral and documentary in the record, the learned trial Court did not believe the witnesses of the plaintiff and found the witnesses of the defendants trustworthy and arrived at the finding that Soma Oraon did not die issueless. The learned trial Court also considered that the rent receipts filed by the defendants and the fact that in the case before the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr PC it was accepted by the ancestors of the plaintiffs namely Mochi that Lohra Oraon was the legal heir of Soma Oroan and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs have neither exclusive title nor possession over the suit land and answered the said three issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on contest. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 5.9.2005 in Title Suit No. 13/1994, the plaintiffs filed appeal against the said judgment and decree and the same was registered as Title Appeal No. 80 of 2005 and the same was ultimately heard and decided by the learned District Judge, XVIII, Ranchi. 6. Learned lower Appellate Court in view of the grounds taken in appeal and submissions made at the bar framed the following points for determination in the appeal before him :- (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court below are wrong, illegal and against the weights of material available on record? (ii) Whether recorded tenant Soma Oraon died issueless and plaintiffs/appellants have right, title and possession over the suit lands? 7. (ii) Whether recorded tenant Soma Oraon died issueless and plaintiffs/appellants have right, title and possession over the suit lands? 7. The learned lower appellate Court thoroughly scrutinized and discussed the facts and evidences on record in detail and on due appraisal of the evidences both oral and documentary and materials on record, answered both the points of determination in the negative and dismissed the appeal as already indicated above. 8. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Court below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in proper prospective and excluded the relevant evidence in record put forth by the witnesses of the plaintiffs regarding the case of the plaintiffs that Soma Oraon died issueless from consideration and also in an undue manner erroneously observed that from the perusal of Ext. D which is the mortgage deed dated 24.3.1953 executed by Ravi Oraon son of Lumba Oraon in favour of one Mahesh Chandra Manjhi with respect to the said plot No. 963 of Khata No. 51, inference can be drawn that Soma Oraon-the recorded tenant of the said land did not die issueless. 9. After hearing the submissions made at the bar and considering the material on record including the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, I find that learned lower Appellate Court has considered all the relevant facts, evidences and materials on record in correct perspective and has arrived at the finding of fact that the defendants are in possession over the suit land as valid title holder being the successor of Soma Oraon-the recorded tenant and the plaintiffs have neither exclusive title nor possession over the suit land. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse, as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in paragraph 10 of the case of Gurvachan Kaur and others v. Salikram (dead) through LRs., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 530 as under :- "10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. This being the position, it must be held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court on the issues of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and default committed by the latter in payment of rent." (Emphasis Supplied). Learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered and his contention that the learned lower appellate Court could not appreciate the evidence in the record in right perspective is without any merit. The learned counsel for the appellants also could not point out any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 10. Thus, there being no merit, this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs. Appeal dismissed.