JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SHAILENDRA SAO AND ORS. V/S SABITA DEVI AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. The respondent no. 7 and 8 has entered appearance through caveat and is present in the court.

3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2021 (decree signed on 19.07.2021) passed by the learned District Judge VI, Chatra whereby Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2018 has been allowed in part and the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2018 (decree signed on 03.04.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) I, Chatra in Original Suit No. 13 of 2012 has been set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was a compromise before the learned 1 st appellate court. The appellant no. 1 to 6 before the learned 1st appellate court were namely Sabita Devi, Vijay Sao, Binod Sao, Ajay Sao, Munna Sao and Anil Sao who entered into compromise and the 1 st appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise with respect to the land in Khata No. 6 Khesra No. 180, area 1.04 acres. The compromise petition dated 06.07.2021 was allowed and therefore the appeal was restricted to the other property i.e. Khata No. 40 Khesra No. 185.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the 1st appellate court has allowed the appeal primarily on the basis of cadastral Khatiyan (exhibitE) which was running in the name of Sohrai Mali, ancestor of defendant nos. 8 and 9 and no further document was produced on behalf of the defendants. The learned counsel has submitted that the Khatiyan was produced by way of additional evidence before the learned 1st appellate court which is apparent from paragraph no. 22 of the 1st appellate court's judgment. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has not considered the case in totality and primarily the case has been decided on the basis of said Exhibit-E. The learned counsel submits that a substantial question of law be framed and appeal be decided.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants this court finds that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule I & II of the plaint and also sought confirmation of possession and if found dispossessed, for restoration of possession after evicting the defendants.

7. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was owned by one Satyawati @ Savitri Devi who executed general power of attorney in favour of one Dr. Naresh Chandra. Dr. Naresh Chandra executed numerous sale deeds as mentioned in the trial court's judgment including registered sale deed no. 7143 dated 23.12.2008(exhibit-1/d). It is the case of the plaintiffs that that the plaintiff no. 2 Shitali Devi purchased 88 decimals land of khata no. 40 plot no. 185 vide sale deed no. 7143 from Naresh Chandra Singh on the basis of said General Power of Attorney. It was also pleaded that all purchasers came in possession of the suit land and the land was mutated in their names.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrN1xYQa19dLsrY1IbLgh0BFnC1S9MUqS0QqA2md%2BEEiA&caseno=C.R./35/2018&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010182032018&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.