RANCHI, India, Aug. 23 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 23:

1. Heard the Learned counsel for the appellants and Defendants 2 nd party.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2017 (decree signed on 07.02.2017) passed by learned District Judge-V, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 43 of 2006 whereby the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2006 (decree signed on 01.09.2006) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 48/1989/691/1997. The plaintiffs are appellants before this Court.

3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 18.12.2018 for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the learned courts below have committed a serious error of law in holding that the plaintiff is not competent to challenge the validity of the settlement made to the Defendant-2 nd party by Bhoodan Yagya Committee although the suit land has been settled with the plaintiff vide order dated 13.06.1964 passed in Settlement Case No. 72 /1962-63 and the claim of the Defendant - 2 nd party is on the basis of land given to him in Bhoodan Yagya and affirmed by Revenue Authority vide Case No. 78/1980-81."

4. The prayers made in the present suit were as follows:

(i) For a decree of declaration that the suit lands are fouti;

(ii) For decree of declaration that the proceeding of Subordinate Judge, Deoghar and the Second Additional District Judge, Dumka are illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs being act of collusion, fraud one to suppression of the factum of Dan Patra prior to institution of the suit.

(iii) For decree for declaration that the proceeding of Bhoodan Committee is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(iv) For a declaration of right, title of the plaintiffs and confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands.

(v) For temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1st party and the defendants 2nd party from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.

(vi) For cost of the suit.

(vii) For any other relief or reliefs which the court may deem fit and necessary.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming the property by way of settlement made in Settlement Case No. 72 of 1962-63 after the property was declared as 'fauti' under the provisions of Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as SPT Act). An appeal was filed by the father of defendant 1st party against the order of settlement which was dismissed on 17.12.1964 and thereafter, the father of defendant 1st party had filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 33 of 1965 / 25 of 1968 which was decided in their favour on 13.07.1968. Against the said judgement dated 13.07.1968, the father of the plaintiffs of the present case filed Title Appeal No. 55 of 1968/ 25 of 1974 which was dismissed on 24.05.1975/05.06.1975. However, father of the plaintiffs was never dispossessed from the property.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOFnYKe3FEYjMQrC9zf7BuNw0tSdTyOMZAD8WztgoGRtp&caseno=SA/125/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010023282017&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.