Rejendra Yadav vs Jamuna Prasad Jha on 24 April, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rejendra Yadav vs Jamuna Prasad Jha on 24 April, 2018

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      S.A. No.21 of 2011
Rejendra Yadav                                       ...... Appellant
                                 Versus
1.   Jamuna Prasad Jha
2.   Anirudh Jha
3.   Bibhuti Jha
4.   Ramchandra Yadav
5.   Mahendra Yadav
6.   Prabhu Yadav
7.   Suresh Yadav                                   ...... Respondents
                             -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

-----

For the Appellant :M/s Rahul Gupta, Manoj Kr Sah Akshay Verma, Advocate For the Respondent nos. 1,2 & 3 :M/s R.C.Khatri, P.R. Khatri Sahajanand Sharma, Advocate

-----

12/Dated: 24/04/2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant for following reliefs:-

"i. That the court may be pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by holding the order dated 07.02.1948 passed by the learned S.D.O., Godda in exchange case no.44/47-48 order dated 23.04.1948 of the SPTA no.3347 and order dated 04.07.2000 passed in Crl. Revision No. 221/98 null and void ii. That the court may be pleased to declare the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs on the suit land. If the court finds that possession of the defendant on the suit land, the defendants may be evicted from the suit land and the plaintiffs may be put in possession of the same through the Amin Commissioner. iii. That the cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs. iv. That any other relief or relieves as the court may deem fit to be awarded to the plaintiffs."

The Trial Court has framed various issues including issue no.2, 4 and 6 which are quoted hereinbelow:-

"2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?

4. Are plaintiffs agnates or cognates of Most. Harni W/o Tulsi Gope?

6. Is the exchange proceeding and the order dated 07.02.1948 No. 44/47-48 tunted with fraud and misrepresentation?"

In fact, the Trial Court has returned the finding against the plaintiff regarding entire issues including issue nos. 2, 4 and 6 but in the present second appeal, the issue raised by the appellant is only with regard to issue no.6 and it has been held by the Trial Court that plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove, fraud or misrepresentation, as alleged in the plaint.

The Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and order including the finding recorded by the Trial Court.

Since, there is concurrent finding of both the courts below, this court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

I.A. No.573 of 2012 is also dismissed.

( Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court