Jharkhand High Court
Sadhu Charan Sharma vs (1) Sohan Kumar Viswakarma on 13 June, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
M.A.No.70 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.70 of 2014
(Against the Judgment dated 10.05.2013 passed by District &
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Probate Case No.04 of
2001)
------
1. Sadhu Charan Sharma
2. Nand Kishore Biswakarma Both sons of Late Somar Mistry
3. Rukmani Devi, W/o Yadunath Viswakarma Sl. No. 1 to 3, all resident of Purana Shyam Bazar, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District- Dhanbad.
4. Smt. Tara Devi, W/o Shri Jharu Bouri, D/o Late Sajni Devi, resident of Chhota Ambona, P.O. & P.S. Bada Ambona, Dhanbad.
.... .... Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
(1) Sohan Kumar Viswakarma, S/o Raj Kumar Biswakarma, resident of Katrasgarh, Katras, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District- Dhanbad.
.... .... Respondent/ Applicant (2) Dilip Kumar Biswakarma, (3) Pintu Kumar Biswakarma, minor (4) Rinku Kumar Biswakarma, minor No.2-4, all S/o late Raj Kumar Biswakarma.
(5) Mamta Devi, W/o Sunil Biswakarma, D/o late Raj Kumar Biswakarma, resident of Bikash Nagar, Matkuria, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, District- Dhanbad (6) Samta Kumari, D/o late Raj Kumar Biswakarma, (7) Sinki Kumari, D/o late Raj Kumar Biswakarma, Minor Sl. No. 2, 3, 4 and 6 & 7 all resident of Purana Shyam Bazar, Modidih, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District Dhanbad. No.3, 4 & 7 are minor and were being represented through Raj 1 M.A.No.70 of 2014 Kumar Bishwakarma (now deceased), being represented through Respondent No.2 .... .... Respondents/ Opposite parties
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court: - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte.
3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.2013 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Probate Case No.04 of 2001 whereby and where under the learned District Judge found the WILL dated 30.04.1993 executed by late Sajni Devi in favour of Sohan Kumar Vishwakarma, is genuine one and ordered the WILL to be probated.
4. The brief fact of this case is that Sajni Devi @ Sajan Rawani was the second wife of one Somar Mistry and the name of first wife of Somar Mistry was Parwati Devi. Sajni Devi was issueless. She constructed a house out of her own stridhan fund after purchasing the land which is the "Schedule Property" of the WILL executed by her in favour of- the applicant before the trial Court. Sohan Kumar Vishwakarma who is the respondent No.1 of this appeal is the step-grandson of Sajni Devi. The applicant along with his family members were living in the "Schedule Property" and looking after and nursing Sajni Devi. Since his childhood, the applicant/respondent No.1 was looking after Sajni Devi and providing welfare and comfort to her and as such Sajni Devi executed her last will on 30.04.1993 in favour of the applicant in respect of the said "Schedule Property" of the WILL. The opposite party Nos.2 to 7 are the brothers and sisters of the appellant and thus, the step-grandson and grand-daughter of Sajni Devi who had no objection to the probate of the said will dated 30.04.1993 executed by Sajni Devi. The opposite party No.1 2 M.A.No.70 of 2014 was the attesting witness of the WILL. He identified the Left Thumb Impression of Sajni Devi over the WILL before the Registering Officer in whose office the WILL was registered. Sajni Devi died issueless on 30.12.2000. The opposite party Nos.1 to 6 have filed their show-cause/'No Objection' stating therein that the applicant is the elder brother of them and supported the averments made in the petition that the applicant was looking after Sajni Devi used to provide her welfare, comfort and also lived with her. The opposite party Nos.8 and 9 are sons of late Somar Mistry and opposite party No.10 is the wife of the son of Somar Mistry. They denied the execution of the WILL by Sajni Devi and the fact that Sajni Devi died issueless. They claimed that opposite party No.11- Tara Devi is the full blood natural daughter of the deceased Sajni Devi and present opposite parties are own full blood brothers of opposite party No.1. They contended that the opposite party No.1 who died during the pendency of the probate proceedings, in connivance with the applicant/ respondent No.1, has prepared a false and fabricated will, executed by Sajni Devi in favour of respondent No.1 to grab the "Schedule Property"
without any locus standi. It was also their case that the "Schedule Property" is the joint property in which the opposite party Nos.8 and 9 are share-holders, hence, the opposite party Nos.8 and 9 are entitled to their share over the said property. The opposite party No.11 has also filed her written statement claiming therein that she is the daughter of deceased Sajni Devi and claimed that the WILL sought to be probated is also a fabricated one and has been executed in favour of the applicant/respondent No.1 in collusion with his father- Raj Kumar Vishwakarma who was also the attesting witness of the WILL being the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.11 claimed that she is the only issue of late Sajni Devi and she was beside Sajni Devi at the time of her death and she served her mother- Sajni Devi lifelong and till her death and she was with her in joint mess and worship. She further claimed that she is the only legal heir and genuine claimant of the entire property acquired by the deceased Sajni Devi and prayed that the probate of the WILL ought not to be granted.
5. The learned court below on the basis of the rival pleadings framed 3 M.A.No.70 of 2014 the following eight issues:-
(1) Is the case maintainable in its present form? (2) Is there any cause of action for the present case? (3) Is the WILL executed by Late Sajni Devi?
(4) Was the applicant being looked after the deceased Sajni Devi since his childhood and the applicant was looking after her for her care and welfare and living with her?
(5) Is the WILL executed by Sajni Devi in favour of the applicant valid?
(6) Is the applicant entitled for grant of Probate of "WILL" above mentioned in his favour?
(7) Is the applicant entitled for the cost of the case? (8) Is the applicant entitled for any relief/reliefs?
6. In support of his case, the applicant/respondent No.1 altogether examined six witnesses while three witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party. Besides oral testimony, applicant also proved the documents which were marked Exhibit 1 to 8 while the opposite parties also proved the documents which were marked Exhibit A to D.
7. The learned court below took up the issue Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 together and after considering the evidence in the record, considered that in their pleadings, the opposite party Nos.8 to 11 did not contest the pleading of the applicant that the property which is mentioned in the schedule of the application, originally belongs to Sajni Devi by making any denial in pleading in respect of the said averments made in the pleading of the applicant/respondent No.1.
8. Relying upon the Ext.2 which is the sale-deed dated 20.02.1969 executed by Potha Mian in favour of Smt. Sajan Rawani and Ext.3 which is the sale-deed dated 16.02.1982 which was executed by Premchand Choudhary in favour of Smt. Sajni Devi and in both two sale-deeds, the address of Sajni Devi @ Sajan Rawani has been shown to be of Katras; the learned court below observed that the same establishes that Sajni Devi was resident of Katras and wife of Somar Mistry. The learned court below also considered the deposition of O.P.W No.1- Rukmini Devi and O.P.W No.2- Nand Kishore Vishwakarma examined on behalf of opposite party 4 M.A.No.70 of 2014 Nos.8, 9 and 10 wearing they have categorically stated in their examination-in-chief and the opposite party No.11- Tara Devi has also stated that Sajni Devi had land and house at Katras. From Ext.8 which is the judgment of G.R. Case No.938 of 2002 in Jogta P.S. Case No.28 of 2002, it appeared to the learned trial court that Tara Devi herself admitted that Somar Mistry is the father of Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and grandfather of applicant/respondent No.1, had two wives namely Parvati Devi and Sajni Devi and Sajni Devi used to stay in Katras during the lifetime of her husband and basing upon the same, the learned court below came to the conclusion that Sajni Devi was the second wife of Somar Mistry and possessed land and house at Katras.
Two death certificates of Sajni Devi were filed from the rival parties. In both the death certificates, the date of death was the same as 30.12.2000. The death certificate of Sajni Devi produced by applicant which was marked Ext.-4 shows that Sajni Devi died at old Shayam Bazar Modidih but the death certificate filed by the opposite party No.11 issued by the Nirsa Circle which has been marked Ext. A, shows that Sajni Devi is the wife of Jyoti Bauri and was the permanent resident of village Baruahad, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Tundi, District- Dhanbad and the place of her death is Chhota Ambona under Nirsa circle but relying upon the oral testimony of the witnesses examined by the applicant/respondent No.1 and also considering the complaint of C.P. Case No.945 of 2001 which was marked Ext.6- instituted by Tara Devi alleging that the father of the applicant/respondent No.1 grabbed the property of Sajni Devi and snatched away the dead body of late Sajni Devi and also the G.R. Case No.938 of 2002 in which the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the forged death certificate of Sajni Devi was manufactured by accused persons and acquitted the accused persons vide Ext.8 and also considering the fact that the appellant-opposite party Nos.8 to 11 before the learned court below, have not deposed in the case that the dead body of the Sajni Devi was snatched away by opposite party No.1- Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and the applicant; the learned court below came to a conclusion that Sajni Devi was cremated at Katras for which death certificate marked Ext.4, was issued and also came to a conclusion 5 M.A.No.70 of 2014 that Sajni Devi was the wife of Somar Mistry, hence, it did not give any weight to the Ext. A.
9. Further, the learned court below considered that the WILL sought to be probated is a registered one and was attested by two witnesses namely opposite party No.1 Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and Rabi Shankar Chatterjee. Raj Kumar Vishwakarma died during the pendency of the case. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee has deposed as A.W-4 and has proved the execution of will by Sajni Devi in presence of the Registrar. A.W.-4 drafted the deed of will and read over the contents to Sajni Devi and the WILL was marked Ext.1. The applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of K.M. Varghese & Others Vs. K.M. Oommen & Others reported in AIR 1994 Kerela 85 paragraph-36 of which reads as under:
"36. It is also pertinent to note that a will is not compulsorily registrable and a distinction has to be kept in mind in understanding the rigours of requirements of attestation and its proof. It is well settled that a document which compulsorily requires registration has to be completed before it is presented for registration. The position is different in the case of documents which are not compulsorily registrable. In such cases, it is enough for compliance with the rules of execution and attestation if the executant actually admits the execution before the Sub-Registrar and the identifying witnesses. It is possible to any that WILL is not being compulsorily registrable, it is enough if the testator admits the execution before the Sub-Registrar and the identifying witnesses."
wherein inter alia it was observed that the WILL being not compulsorily registrable, it is enough if the testator admits the execution before the Sub-Registrar and the identifying witnesses.
10. The learned court below considered that no specific suggestion was given by the opposite party Nos.8 to 11 that Sajni Devi has not put her Left Thumb Impression over the WILL or for that matter Sajni Devi never accepted the execution of the WILL before the registrar and the identifying witnesses and came to a conclusion that the WILL dated 30.04.1993 executed by Sajni Devi in favour of the applicant/respondent No.1- Sohan Kumar Vishwakarma is genuine.
11. The learned court below answered issue Nos.1, 2 & 8 in favour of the applicant and in respect of issue No.7 held that parties have to bear 6 M.A.No.70 of 2014 their own cost.
12. Mr. Kumar Nilesh- learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is next submitted that the learned court below also failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant-P.W-5 in paragraph-16 of his cross-examination has admitted that the name of first husband of Sajni Devi was Jyoti Bauri and the opposite party No.11 Tara Devi was the daughter of Jyoti Bauri. So, the natural corollary is that the opposite party No.11 is the daughter of Sajni Devi. It is next submitted that the learned court below failed to consider that the P.W.5 in paragraph-20 of his cross- examination has admitted that Sajni Devi got married with Late Somar Mistry in 1970 only whereas the Ext.2 being the sale-deed bearing No.2506 dated 20.02.1969 by virtue of which the part of scheduled property was acquired by Late Sajni Devi, is of prior period when she married with Late Somar Mistry. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that Sajni Devi was an illiterate lady and executor of the WILL, who is the sole beneficiary in collusion with his father Late Raj Kumar Vishwakarma being the original opposite party No.1 to the probate application, manufactured the deed dated 30.04.1993. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to consider that the P.W-4 in paragraph-8 of his cross-examination has stated that he was not aware about which language Sajni Devi was knowing. It casts a doubt as to whether the WILL was read over and made to understand to the testator by the P.W.4. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam reported in (2003) 2 SCC 91 wherein in the facts of that case by a judgment of reversal, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court refusing grant of probate by treating the scribe of the WILL as an attesting witness when in the fact of that case, the said scribe did not sign as animo attestendi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the said judgment of the High Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the scribe of a will cannot be an attesting witness and as in this case, the scribe of will is an attesting witness. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below ought to be reversed.
7 M.A.No.70 of 201413. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants made at the Bar, the only point that crop up for determination in this appeal is Whether the learned court below has appreciated the evidence in the record, in a proper manner?
14. Out of the six witnesses examined by the applicant, A.W.1 Madhav Singh Sardar is the Assistant Clerk in the Registry Office of Dhanbad. He has proved the WILL which was registered in the said registry office which was marked Ext. 1.
15. A.W.2- Suresh Vishwakarma has stated about the "Schedule Property" of the WILL being the exclusive property of Sajni Devi and Sajni Devi was issueless. The applicant/ respondent No.1 was residing in the house of Sajni Devi since his childhood and the A.W.2 was also present at the time of execution of the WILL by Sajni Devi in favour of the applicant/ respondent No.1 on 30.04.1993 and after the death of the Sajni Devi the said "Schedule Property" of the WILL was in possession of the applicant/respondent No.1 and he is also paying the rent over the "Schedule Property." In his cross-examination, the A.W.2 has stated that he is the grandfather by relationship of the applicant/ respondent No.1 and Sajni Devi who is the grandmother of the applicant/ respondent No.1 died on 30.12.2000. Sajni Devi died at Sijuwa. The A.W.2 went to the cremation ground. Sajni Devi was the wife of Somar Vishwakarma.
16. A.W.3- Brajesh Singh has also deposed in the same manner as the A.W.2 in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit. In his cross- examination, the A.W.3 has stated that Sajni Devi was paternal aunt of A.W.3 by relation. Sajni Devi died at Shyam Bazar, Sijuwa. He denied that Sajni Devi died at Chhota Ambona.
17. A.W.4- Rabi Shankar Chatterjee is the scribe of the WILL. He has stated about the preparing of the WILL on being told by Sajni Devi. After preparing the WILL he read over the contents of the same to Sajni Devi and on finding the contents of the WILL to be true, Sajni Devi in healthy body and without any pressure, put her Left Thumb Impression on each of the pages of the WILL, which was identified by Raj Kumar Vishwakarma. He presented the WILL on 30.04.1993 for registration 8 M.A.No.70 of 2014 before the Registrar and the Registrar after getting consent of Sajni Devi, got the said will registered. The A.W.4 identified as an identifying witness in the said will. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say which language Sajni Devi knew and he was not knowing Sajni Devi prior to the execution of the WILL. A.W.4 is a deed-writer by profession.
18. A.W.5- Sohan Kumar Vishwakarma is the applicant/ respondent No.1 himself. He has deposed about relationship of Sajni Devi with him. He has corroborated the averments made in the probate application before execution of the prior two sale-deeds being marked exhibits and is residing with the testator since his childhood and looking after her. In his cross-examination, he has stated that opposite party No.1 is the daughter of Jyoti Bauri and the earlier husband of Sajni Devi was Jyoti Bauri.
19. A.W.6- Ashok Kumar Dutta is a deed-writer who has proved the sale-deed marked as Ext. 3.
20. The witness examined on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 to 7 namely Dileep Kumar Vishwakarma, has supported the case of the applicant/ respondent No.1 that Sajni Devi was under the treatment of Dr. K. C. Ray before her death. Sajni Devi used to reside at Sijuwa, more than one month prior to her death.
21. Opposite Party Witness No.1 from the side of opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 10; Rukmini Devi has stated that Sajni Devi died at Chhota Ambona in the house of her daughter Tara Devi.
22. Opposite Party Witness No.2 for the opposite party Nos.8, 9 and 10 has deposed that the WILL is a wrong one. The third witness of O.P.W. Nos.8 to 10 who is the opposite party No.8 himself- Sadhu Charan Sharma has also stated that Sajni Devi died at Chhota Ambona and was living with her only daughter Tara Devi. The WILL executed by Sajni Devi is a wrong and forged one.
23. The witness Bimal Chandra Sikhdhar from opposite party No.11 has stated that he is a Baidhya and Sajni Devi died on 30.12.2000 at Chhota Ambona in the house of her daughter Tara Devi.
24. O.P.W.-11 Tara Devi herself has stated that the applicant/respondent No.1 in connivance with his father has prepared a will and no will has been executed by her mother in favour of the 9 M.A.No.70 of 2014 appellant/ respondent No.1 and she is the only inheritor of her mother's property.
25. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (supra) is concerned, in that case as the scribe of the WILL was not an attesting witness as he did not signed as animo attestendi but still the High Court treated him as an attesting witness. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the High Court committed error but in that case no general law has been laid down that under no circumstances a scribe of a will can be an attesting witness. But in this case undisputedly, the A.W.4 has signed as animo attestendi besides being the scribe of the WILL. So, the judgment of Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (supra) is of no help to the appellants. This view is fortified with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. H. Venkata Sastri and Sons and others etc reported in AIR 1969 SC 1147 wherein while dealing with a pari materia the provision of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 being the section 3 of the Transfer of Properties Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under in paragraphs 8 and 9:
8. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act gives the definition of the word "attested" and is in these words:-
"'Attested', in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
It is to be noticed that the word 'attested", the thing to be defined, occurs as part of the definition itself. To attest is to bear witness to a fact. Briefly put, the essential conditions of a valid attestation under Section 3 are: (1) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument or have received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature; (2) with a view to attest or to bear 10 M.A.No.70 of 2014 witness to this fact each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. It is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, that is, for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature. If a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose, e. g., to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness.
9. "In every case the Court must be satisfied that the names were written animo attestandi", see Jarman on Wills, 8th Ed. p. 137. Evidence is admissible to show whether the witness had the intention to attest. "The attesting witnesses must subscribe with the intention that the subscription made should be complete attestation of the will, and evidence is admissible to show whether such was the intention or not," see Theobald on Wills, 12th Ed. p. 129. In Girja Datt v. Gangotri, AIR 1955 SC 346 (351) the Court held that the two persons who had identified the testator at the time of the registration of the will and had appended their signatures at the foot of the endorsement by the Sub-Registrar, were not attesting witnesses as their signatures were not put "animo attestandi." In Abinash Chandra v. Dasrath Malo, ILR 56 Ca1 598=(AIR 1929 Cal 123) it was held that a person who had put his name under. the word "scribe" was not an attesting witness as he had put his signature only for the purpose of authenticating that he was a "scribe". In Shiam Sundar Singh v. Jagannath Singh, 54 Mad LJ 43=(AIR 1927 PC 248) the Privy Council held that the legatees who had put their signatures on the will in token of their consent to its execution were not attesting witnesses and were not disqualified from taking as legatees. (Emphasis supplied)
26. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding the deposition of the A.W.4 that he was not aware of which language the testator was knowing is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that admittedly the WILL was executed and registered in the year 1993 and the A.W.4 was examined in the court in the year 2007 i.e. after 14 years. It is the admitted contention of the A.W.4 and the case of applicant as well is that the A.W.4 was not having any prior acquaintance with the testator. The A.W.4 is a professional deed-writer who worked in Dhanbad. On a particular day the testator along with others came to him and at the instance of the testator, the A.W.4 drafted the WILL and got it executed which was 11 M.A.No.70 of 2014 registered and the job of the A.W.4 was over on the date of execution of the WILL on 30.04.1993 itself. It is not the case of any of the parties that even after 30.04.1993, the A.W.4 ever met the testator. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the A.W. 4 that he was not aware as to which of the language the testator was knowing, in the considered opinion of the court, is not of much significant and certainly of not such nature so as to discard his otherwise trustworthy and reliable testimony.
27. It is not the case of either of the parties that the WILL was executed at Katras. The testator at the time of execution of the WILL, was residing at Katras but the WILL was executed at Dhanbad and registered in the Sub-Registar's office at Dhanbad. So, under such circumstances if a professional deed-writer has not gone to the place of residence of a testator, it is certainly not a ground to discard his testimony so far as the execution of the WILL, by the testator is concerned. The testimony of A.W.4 so far as it relates to the execution of the WILL is concerned, has remained intact. Under such circumstances, this cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of A.W.4.
28. So far as the contention of the appellants that Tara Devi is the daughter of Jyoti Bauri is concerned, the opposite parties for reasons best known to them, did not ask the question as to whether Tara Devi was the daughter of Sajni Devi or not. Jyoti Bauri was the earlier husband of Sajni Devi. So, there is no material in the record to suggest that Jyoti Bauri was not having any other wife. So, under such circumstances a presumption certainly cannot be drawn that the daughter of Jyoti Bauri must be the daughter of Sajni Devi.
29. So far as the contention of the opposite party Nos.8 to 10 regarding fraud and false execution of the WILL is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that forgery and fraud has to be specifically pleaded. It has to be mentioned as to whether the Left Thumb Impression of Sajni Devi is in fact appearing on the WILL or not. There is absolutely no pleading about the exact manner of fraud or forgery committed by the applicant/ respondent No.1 and his father who was the original opposite party No.1 and who died during the pendency of the probate proceedings. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any pleading regarding the exact 12 M.A.No.70 of 2014 manner of fraud and forgery committed, the learned court below has rightly held that the WILL dated 30.04.1993 executed by Sajni Devi in favour of applicant/ respondent No.1, is genuine. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no improper appreciation of the evidences by the learned court below. Thus, the sole point for determination is answered accordingly.
30. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed ex-parte.
31. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith along with the lower court records.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of June, 2022 AFR/ Animesh 13