RANCHI, India, Feb. 11 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 12:

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

2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.1995 (decree signed on 15.07.1995) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pakur in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1992/2 of 1994 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1992 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-II, Pakur in Title Suit No. 49 of 1988. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the 1st appellate court reversed the decree. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court, who has been substituted during the pendency of this case.

3. At the outset, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents has referred to order dated 25.02.2003 pointing out that the appeal has abated as against the proposed legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1 on account of non-compliance of order dated 25.02.2003 and has further referred to order dated 01.05.2003 passed by this Court which has recorded that the question of incompetency of the appeal on account of its abatement in connection with deceased respondent no. 1 will be considered at the time of hearing. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that these orders may be taken care of while deciding the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in spite of the fact that the respondent no. 1 was not substituted, still the appeal has not abated. He submits that the case be decided on the basis of the substantial questions of law which have been framed vide order dated 23.02.1998 which are as follows:

"(i) whether an appellate court can doubt the genuineness of a valid registered deed fully proved by the scribe himself and found real, valid and genuine, by the trial court?

(ii) Whether the genuineness of valid document can be doubted, when the same has been otherwise fully proved, only because the identifying and attesting witnesses have not been examined?

(iii) Whether mere omission to mention a particular date in the adoption deed regarding the adoption which took some year back would invalid the deed?"

Arguments of the Appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed the trial court's as well as appellate court's judgment and has submitted that the plaintiff (original appellant) had filed the suit seeking a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the legally adopted son of Munshi Murmu and a further decree declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land was prayed. The plaintiff further sought a decree for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In case the plaintiff was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, a relief was also prayed for recovery of possession. The suit property was relating to Jamabandi No. 10 standing in the name of recorded tenant Jhunka Murmu.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x2sW0WzyHO%2Fl4ARBs4Ni5Pq1DugSoiLkVVDS%2BepvfVsT&caseno=LPA/736/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010346802025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.