Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 25 (JHR)

Sunil Manjhi v. Pawan Rai

2023-01-04

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.12.2009 and decree dated 08.01.2010 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dumka in Title Appeal No.15 of 2008 whereby judgment and decree dated 06.08.2008 and dated 22.08.2008 passed by learned Sub Ordinate Judge-I, Dumka in Title Suit No.35 of 2000 was affirmed, the appellants have preferred the instant Second Appeal 3. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession of the property described in schedule “A” and “B” of the plaint on the ground that they are Hindus and governed by Mitakshra School. The said suit was decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to right, title and interest as per schedule A and B property of Mauza –Silfar no.3, S.C. Siltha, Police Station Ramgarh, Subdivision Dumka. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 06.08.2008 the appellants/defendants filed the Title Appeal No.15 of 2008 and by judgment dated 23.12.2009 the learned appellate court has affirmed the order of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with that, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants. 4. This Second Appeal was admitted on 26.05.2010 on the following question of law: (i) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of record in holding that there was no dispute regarding the genealogy, whereas, both the Courts, particularly, the Trial Court has quoted the genealogy given by both the parties and also the facts in the written statement, which evidently goes to show that the genealogy given by the plaintiffs was disputed by the defendants? and (ii) Whether the Courts below have proceeded on wrong notion that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are the defendants of Ram Chandra Manjhi which ultimately led to wrong decision/conclusion of the Courts below on the main issue involved in the suit? 5. The suit was instituted alleging therein that the case of the plaintiff/respondent as finds place in the plaint of T.S.No.35/2000 is that the parties are Hindu and governed by Mitakashara School of Hindu Law. 5. The suit was instituted alleging therein that the case of the plaintiff/respondent as finds place in the plaint of T.S.No.35/2000 is that the parties are Hindu and governed by Mitakashara School of Hindu Law. The suit land appertaining to Jamabandi No.62 of Village Silfar (Siltha) stood recorded during gantzer settlement operation jointly in the name of Ramchandar Manjhi, Sitabi Manjhi, Chatardhar Manjhi, Ishar Manjhi, Roopchandar Manjhi and Most. Kunti by showing their possession of separate plots in the remarks column. The plaintiffs have specified the plots stood recorded separately in the possession of Ramchandar Manjhi in schedule of the plaint likewise Jamabandi No: 63 of village: Siltha during gantzer settlement operation stood jointly recorded in the name of aforesaid person showing their separate possession and the land recorded in separate possession of Ramchandar Manjhi is shown in schedule-B of the plaint. Plot no: 509 & 900 were recorded in joint possession of Ramchandar Manjhi and Kunti Devi, but it was divided long ago by them. The schedule A & B are the suit land. One Kirani Manjhi has one son and three daughters namely Ramchandar Manjhi, Sukhdev Ugani Manjiyain and Alkhi Raiyain. Jogi Kumwar is son of Sukhdev, whereas Sadhari Raiyain is born out of the wedlock of Ugani and Mishry Manjhi. Ramchandar Manjhi was sole and exclusively owner of the suit property till his death which occurred in the month of Kartik 1956. He died issueless then his three sisters namely Sukhdev, Ugani and Alkhi inherited the suit land. Ugani died in the month of Baisakh 1969 and survived by her daughter Sadhari Raiyain. Sukhdev died in Kartik 1972 and her interest in the suit land devolved upon her son Jogi Kunwar. Since the sister were married in different village, so they got the suit land cultivated through the defendant and appropriate produce thereof on death of "gani Manjhiyain, her daughter Sadhari use to get the share and produce and so is the case of Jogi Kunwar on death of Sukhdev Manjhiyain. The defendant dishonestly get their name entered in with respect to the suit land during recent survey operation. They have no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs approached the Assistant Settelement Officer at Gamhari Camp on or about 09.07.1982, but they were not allowed to put up their claim and the circumstance they are impleadly dispossessed so the necessity of the suit. They have no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs approached the Assistant Settelement Officer at Gamhari Camp on or about 09.07.1982, but they were not allowed to put up their claim and the circumstance they are impleadly dispossessed so the necessity of the suit. The cause of action arose on July, 1982 and the suit is valued at Rs.864.50 as they are exempted from the payment of Court fees, so they have sought for the relief as discussed above. 6. On notice the defendant appeared and filed their written statement by stating that the plaintiffs have no cause of action. The suit was filed about 56 years after death of Ramchandar Manjhi since when Roopchandar Manjhi and thereafter these defendants are cultivating and possessing the properties left by Ramchandar Manjhi, so the suit is barred by limitation and also bad in non-joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that it is wrong to say that Plot No: 509 and 900 were partitioned between Ramchandar Manjhi and Most. Kunti. The genological table is incorrect. Infact one Sanichar Manjhi had his son Kiran Manjhi, Baiju, Biro and Janki Manjhi. Ramchandar was son of Kiran Manjhi, who died issuless. Most. Kunti was wife of Biro Manjhi. Baizu died leaving behind Roopchandar Manjhi who also died leaving Makru Chakru, Lakeshwar and Kaleshwar Manjhi, whereas Janki has his sons sitabi, Chatadhari and Ishaer Manjhi. Isher Manjhi died leaving behind his daughter Kakji Devi, Sitabi died issueless and Chatardhari died leaving behind Bairo Manjhi. Some time prior to the last settlement operation the sons of Sanichar Manjhi were seprated and partioned the land and the process of settelement was completed by 20 May, 1925 (14.09.1922 to 20.05.1925). As such in joint Jamabandi Number respective separate possession of the recorded tenant were shown. In about 1927 Ramchandar Manjhi and Most. Kunti died survived by Roopchandar, Biro and Ishar Manjhi. Wife of Ramchandar predeceased him, so his line became extinct. Biro and Most Kunti had daughter namely Pabati who died issueless probably during the life time of her mother and that line also became extinct. Sitabi died issueless. The claim of death of Ramchandar Manjhi in Kartik, 1956 is false and purposely introduced to bring the case under the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, so it is denied. In the year 1927, the sister were not recognized as legal heirs of their brother. Sitabi died issueless. The claim of death of Ramchandar Manjhi in Kartik, 1956 is false and purposely introduced to bring the case under the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, so it is denied. In the year 1927, the sister were not recognized as legal heirs of their brother. The defendants are cultivating and possessing the suit land and they are also paying the rent on their own. They were recorded as raiyat of the suit land during current operation. Since, they are in possession of the suit land for last 55-56 years. The defendant have valid title and interest in the suit land. The plaintiffs have filed Tanaza against recording of the suit land which was enquired and the plaintiffs have produced evidence which were found false and the case was rejected. It is true that they have approached the Assistant Settlement Officer on 09.07.1982. 7. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued the only one point with regard to genealogy and submits that the genealogy was disputed by the appellants however the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have held that there is admission which is not correct and in that view of the matter the concurrent finding of the learned courts are required to be interfered and to buttress his argument he draws the attention of the Court to the judgment of the learned trial court particularly the genealogy described and depicted in the said judgment by the appellant/defendants as well as the genealogy described by the respondent/plaintiffs. By way of drawing the attention of the Court at the internal page no.5 of the said learned trial court judgment, he submits that the learned trial court has taken note of the dispute raised with regard to the genealogy by the appellants however, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have affirmed the said genealogy which is illegal and it is the substantial question of law and that is why this appeal was admitted. He submits that it is required to be answered by the learned court which has not been done by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and on this ground he submits that the law point may kindly be answered in favour of the appellants. 8. On the other hand, Mr. He submits that it is required to be answered by the learned court which has not been done by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and on this ground he submits that the law point may kindly be answered in favour of the appellants. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the genealogy disclosed by the respondents/defendants was with regard to Kirani Manjhi and the genealogy of other side was not disclosed which has been discussed at length by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. He further submits that since there was no dispute with regard to the genealogy no issue was framed with regard to the same. He further submits that it is also not disputed that Kirani Manjhi had died leaving behind his one son Ramchander Manjhi and three daughters Sukhdeo, Ugni and Rakhiya and the only dispute with regard to the exact year of death of Ram Chandra Manjhi and both the courts have held that he had died in the year 1956. 9. In view of the above facts and the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record as well as the judgments of the learned trial court and the learned appellate court. It appears that while deciding the point nos.1 and 2, it has been discussed that the respondent/plaintiffs in the plaint have only depicted the branch of Kirani Manjhi in genealogical table, but the defendants in their written statement have shown Kiran, Baiju, Biro and Manki sons of Sanichar Manjhi. Most. Kunti was widow of Biro Manjhi whereas Ramchandar Manjhi was s/o Kiran Manjhi. Roopchandar Manjhi was s/o of Baiju and Sitabi and Ishar Manjhi is son of Janki Manjhi. They all were recorded tenant. The court has also held that it is admitted that in the gantzer settlement of record shows operation of settlement on record of rights prepared jointly. The court has also held that Kabjawari entry under the records of rights does not show the partition among the recorded tenant. D.W.1 has deposed in the court namely Alki and she is one of the daughter of Kiran Manjhi and at the time of examination she was aged 70 years. The court has also held that Kabjawari entry under the records of rights does not show the partition among the recorded tenant. D.W.1 has deposed in the court namely Alki and she is one of the daughter of Kiran Manjhi and at the time of examination she was aged 70 years. She has stated that Ram Chandar died 28 years ago. She was examined on 14.02.1985 and considering that examination, the learned court came to the conclusion that Ram Chandra Manjhi died in the year about 1956 and she has also stated that her sister also died and inherited her father?s share in the property. Thus, the contention of Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants with regard to the dispute of the genealogy was not dealt with by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court appears to be not correct and as it is apparent that the trial court as well as the learned appellate court have considered the said contention of the appellant at length in the order of the appellate court at paragraph no.8 and at paragraph no. 11 of the learned trial court judgment. It is well settled that in case where the genealogy is the very basis of the plaintiff’s case, and since there is a tendency on the part of an interested person or a party in order to grab, establish or prove an alleged claim, to concoct, fabricate or procure false genealogy to suit their ends, the Court should endeavor to do justice on the materials and records uninfluenced and undaunted by any extraneous circumstances. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the three-Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Bihar vs Radha Krishna Singh & Ors reported in 1983 (3) SCC 118 . Paragraph nos.18 and 268 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “18. After a brief narration of the facts, mentioned above, before going to the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, it may be necessary to state the well-established principles in the light of which we have to decide the conflicting claims of the parties. It appears that the plaint genealogy is the very fabric and foundation of the edifice on which is built the plaintiff's case. This is the starting point of the case of the plaintiff which has been hotly contested by the appellant. It appears that the plaint genealogy is the very fabric and foundation of the edifice on which is built the plaintiff's case. This is the starting point of the case of the plaintiff which has been hotly contested by the appellant. In such cases, as there is a tendency on the part of an interested person or a party in order to grab, establish or prove an alleged claim, to concoct, fabricate or procure false genealogy to suit their ends, the courts in relying on the genealogy put forward must guard themselves against falling into the trap laid by a series of documents or a labyrinth of seemingly old genealogies to support their rival claims. 268. We must confess however that to discover and sift the truth from a huge mass of materials relevant or irrelevant, ancient and archaic, varied and diverse, heterogeneous and sundry, has not been a bed of roses but indeed a herculean task. With due deference to the majority Judges we dare say that despite their strenuous and perhaps genuine efforts to reach legally correct conclusions on important issues involved in the case, in the ultimate analysis they have only been able to do poetic rather than legal justice. We have, therefore, taken great care to rely only on those documents or evidence which appeared to us to be reliable and dependable : thus eliminating any chance of mistake. No mortal person whether he be a Judge or a jurist can ever claim to be infallible and all that is required is to do justice on the materials and records uninfluenced and undaunted by any extraneous circumstances. This is what we have endeavoured to do in the present case which may be one of the many cases before us but doubtless a prestigious one for the parties involved in the appeal.” 10. Moreover, there is concurrent finding. Under the circumstances, the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have come to concurrent conclusion that there was misuser and have also discussed the genealogy as well as the contention of the appellants in the Appeal the High Court is not required to interfere with. 11. In view of the above facts and the reasons and the analysis the law points are answered accordingly. 12. Second Appeal No.41 of 2010 is dismissed. 13. Interim order if any is vacated. 14. Pending petition, if any, also stands dismissed.