Jharkhand High Court
Basraj Uraon vs Dhurwa Uraon @ Dhurwa Tana Bhagat on 26 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.99 of 2021
------
(Against the judgment dated 27.08.2021 passed by learned District Judge-VI, Chatra in Civil Appeal No.13 of 2019)
------
1. Basraj Uraon, Aged about 45 Years, S/o Late Banshi Uraon
2. Ritu Uraon, Aged about 40 Years, S/o Late Bishwanath Uraon
3. Gujra Uraon, Aged about 58 Years, S/o Late Mangra Uraon
4. Sanghara Uraon, Aged about 58 Years, S/o Late Mangra Uraon
5. Basudeo Uraon, Aged about 50 Years, S/o Railu Uraon
6. Mahadeo Uraon @ Gulth Uraon, Aged about 48 Years, S/o Fagua Uraon
7. Perwa Uraon, Aged about 53 Years, S/o Chutru Uraon
8. Surja Uraon, Aged about 48 years, S/o Late Chutra Uraon All residents of Village: Khandhar, P.O. & P.S. Tandwa, District: Chatra .... .... .... Defendants/ Respondents/Appellants. Versus
1. Dhurwa Uraon @ Dhurwa Tana Bhagat, S/o Late Rana Uraon, resident of Village: Khandhar, P.O. & P.S.: Tandwa, District: Chatra .... .... .... Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent
2. Prameshwar Tana Bhagat, S/o Late Rana Bhagat
3. Birju Tana Bhagat, S/o Late Rana Bhagat
4. Chhotelal Tana Bhagat, S/o Late Rana Bhagat Sr. No.2, 3 & 4 residents of Village: Khandhar, P.O. & P.S.:
Tandwa, District: Chatra.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. + Dist.- Chatra .... .... .... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents.
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
------
PRESENT 1 S.A. No.99 of 2021 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 27.08.2021 passed by learned District Judge-VI, Chatra in Civil Appeal No.13 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of the Original Suit No.23 of 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division)-I, Chatra and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff filed Original Suit No.23 of 2011 in the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division)-I, Chatra with a prayer for declaration of title in respect of Schedule A land and further recovery of the possession of the same after evicting the defendants from the suit land by the process of the court and consequential reliefs.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit land was recorded in the name of their ancestor Chunda Uraon. Chunda Uraon died leaving behind his only son Rana Uraon, who also died leaving behind four sons namely Dhurwa Uraon @ Dhurwa Tana Bhagat, Prameshwar Tana Bhagat, Birju Tana Bhagat and Chhotelal Tana Bhagat. The brothers of the plaintiff are proforma defendant Nos.10-12 in the original suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the proforma defendant Nos.10-12 got exclusive right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and they are paying rent to the State and received rent receipts. The plaintiff further pleaded that before vesting of the land to the State their ancestor used to pay rent to the ex-landlord. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.1-9 have made illegal claim 2 S.A. No.99 of 2021 over the suit land on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and by using muscle power the defendants started construction over the suit land on 15.08.2006. Upon application filed by the plaintiff, the Circle Officer initiated Measurement Case No.27/2006-07. The plaintiff and the defendant Basraj Uraon appeared before the Circle Officer but the defendant claimed the land on the basis of forged and fabricated document of having acquired the suit land by way of a Sada Hukumnama executed by the ex-landlord in their favour and not as descendants of Chunda Uraon, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
5. The defendant No.1-8 filed their joint written-statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and further pleaded that they are the descendants of Chunda Uraon. They also claimed that rent receipts were issued in their name. The dwelling house of the defendant is on the plot No.48.
6. The defendant No.10-12 who are the full brothers of the plaintiff, in their joint written-statement supported the case of the plaintiff.
7. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following six issues:-
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action to suit?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration of right, title and interest on the land as mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint and whether he is entitled to get recovery of possession of the same?
(iv) Whether the suit is barred by non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
(v) Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs?
8. In support of his case, the plaintiff altogether examined five witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to Ext. 6. From 3 S.A. No.99 of 2021 the side of the defendants, seven witnesses have been examined besides proving the documents which have been marked Ext. A and Ext. B.
9. The learned trial court first took up issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and as it is a settled principle of law that the plaintiffs have to prove their case and the plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs and they cannot take benefit of defendant's weakness and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession on Schedule A land and the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties being descendants of defendant No.6 and decided the issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) negatively against the plaintiff.
10. The learned trial court next took up the issue Nos.(i), (ii), (v) and (vi) together and decided the same against the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule A land of the suit, the suit is barred by non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. There is no valid cause of action and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and dismissed the suit.
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.13 of 2019 in the court of Principal District Judge, Chatra which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court being the District Judge-VI, Chatra by the impugned judgment as already indicated above.
12. The learned first appellate on the basis of the materials available in the record and the submissions made before it, formulated the following two points for determination:-
4 S.A. No.99 of 2021
"1. Whether the plaintiff has valid title over the Schedule-A land of the plaint and is he entitle for recovery of possession?
2. Whether the defendant No. 1-9 are descendants of khatiyani Raiyan Chunda Uraon?
13. The learned first appellate court took up the point for determination Nos.1 and 2 together being interconnected. The learned first appellate court considered that Ext.1 and 4, from which it appeared to the learned first appellate court that the plaintiff filed encroachment case in the year 2006-07 and the defendant in their objection claimed the ownership of the suit land on the basis that the same has been settled by the ex-landlord in their favour and not as descendants of Chunda Uraon nor in that proceeding they have claimed that they are the descendants of Chunda Uraon but in this suit, the defendants have taken a U-turn by pleading for the first time in the written-statement that they are the descendants of Chunda Uraon and they have acquired the suit property by way of inheritance; instead of on the basis of settlement of the said land in their favour by their ex-landlord, which was their plea in the said encroachment case. The learned first appellate court also considered the voter list from which the genealogy of the plaintiff relating to Chunda Uraon was corroborated and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove his case without any reasonable doubt and decided the points for determination in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and against the defendants/respondents and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned first appellate court has committed a grave illegality by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without recording any finding that the plaintiff is the descendant of 5 S.A. No.99 of 2021 Chunda Uraon. It is next submitted that the learned first appellate court has committed a series of error of law in failing to meet the reasoning assigned by the trial court for dismissing the suit. It is further submitted that the learned first appellate court has relied upon the inadmissible evidence being the Ext.2 and 5 as well as the Ext.1 and 4 which were discarded by the learned trial court. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court be set aside after formulating appropriate substantial question of law.
15. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned first appellate court which is the final court of facts unless the same is found to be perverse as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurvachan Kaur & Others vs. Salikram (Dead) Through Lrs. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 530 para-10 of which reads as under:-
"10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. This being the position, it must be held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court on the issues of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and default committed by the latter in payment of rent." (Emphasis supplied)
16. It is a settled principle of law that perversity, so far as it relates to interfering with the findings of fact by exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that if a finding of fact is arrived 6 S.A. No.99 of 2021 at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding, so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 para-28 of which reads as under :-
"28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [(2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685]."
(Emphasis supplied) and the same has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs R.Vijaya Renganathan & Others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 483 as also in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 694.
17. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the case of the plaintiff and proforma respondent No.10-12 that they are the descendants of Chunda Uraon; their father Rana Bhagat, being the son of Chunda Uraon. The witnesses of the 7 S.A. No.99 of 2021 plaintiff being the P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 all have stated about the case of the plaintiff that they are the descendants of recorded tenant Chunda Uraon and they have also stated that the contesting defendants are no way related to Chunda Uraon. Besides the oral testimony, there is documentary evidence in shape of voter-list which has been marked Ext.2. Further, the Ext. 5 is the genealogical table of late Chunda Uraon in which the name of the plaintiff also finds place. On the other hand, the undisputed fact remains that in earlier encroachment proceeding, the certified copy of the order-sheet of which has been marked Ext.1 and the certified copy of the order of the Circle Officer, Tandwa has been marked Ext. 4 go to show that in the said proceedings, the same defendants took the plea that they are the owners of the suit land on the basis of the settlement made by the ex-landlord and not as descendants of Chunda Uraon nor they did take the plea that they are the descendants of Chunda Uraon.
18. So, under such facts of the case, the learned first appellate being the final court of facts having arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has established their case being the descendants of Chunda Uraon, inherited the suit property; in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be termed as perverse warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
19. So far as the contention of the appellants that Ext. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are inadmissible evidence is concerned, from perusal of the judgment of both the courts below appears that they have been marked exhibit in adherence of the established procedural law and before neither of the courts below, which were the courts of fact, the appellants of this Second Appeal, ever challenged the 8 S.A. No.99 of 2021 inadmissibility of those documents. Having not done so, this Court is of the considered view that it is not open for the appellant to raise the admissibility of a document on the ground that the same has not been duly proved, to be agitated for the first time in a Second Appeal.
20. Under such circumstances, this Court do not finds any merit on this contention of the appellants as well.
21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal.
22. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs.
23. In view of disposal of the instant Second Appeal, pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous.
24. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 26th of September, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 9 S.A. No.99 of 2021