RANCHI, India, Aug. 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 17:
1. The instant second appeal is directed against judgement dated 24.06.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 39/2001, whereby and whereunder the order dated 14.07.2001 passed in Case No. 4111/91 under section 87 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad has been reversed and set aside.
2. This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 22.09.2004 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has committed errors of law in allowing the claim regarding 40 decimals of land in plot No. 458 on the basis of written argument at the appellate stage although the same was not mentioned in the original petition"
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus is that C.S.Plot No. 438, Area 80 decimal of Khata No. 80 stood recorded in the name of Hiru Mahto and others showing possession of Hiru Mahto who died living behind him four sons, namely, Sibu Mahto, Matu Mahto, Guru Mahto and Sambhu Mahto. It is alleged that Guru Mahto and Sambhu Mahto had died issueless. Under deed dated 07.08.1942, Guru Mahto and Sambhu Mahto for self and as guardian of Sahdeo Mahto sold the entire 80 decimals land in favour of sons of Shibu Mahto, namely, Jitu Mahto, Buddhu Mahto and Chhathi Ram Mahto. Thereafter, vide deed dated 13.02.1970, Jitu Mahto and Buddhu Mahto sold the area of 40 decimals out of above C.S. Plot No. 458 in favour of Sahdeo Mahto, the appellant. During revisional survey, R.S. plot No. 832 & 833 is carved out of plot No. 458, which was recorded in the name of Sahdeo Mahto under Khata number 324. Thus, recording of name led to filing of case under section 87 of CNT Act in which the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad, Shri R.P. Sharma, which was assailed in Title Appeal No. 39/2001. The Appellate Court reversed the order passed by the Revenue Officer recording reasons that Jamabandi No. 507 is standing in the name of Hadi Ram Mahto for lands of 40 decimal, but still has dismissed the case of plaintiff without any rhymes and reasons and as such the impugned order dated 14.07.2001 is bad in law and cannot be upheld, accordingly, set aside the order and allowed the appeal directing the learned court below to correct the map and records of right as prayed by the plaintiffs with regards to 40 decimal land in plot No. 83 in the name of plaintiffs of the original suit.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider that the appellant has purchased 40 decimal lands from Jitu Mahto, son of Shibu Mahto and others through registered sale deed No. 2450 dated 13.02.1970 and Sahdeo Mahto became absolute owner of plot No. 832-833/458. The appellant has also got his name mutated in the Sirista of Government of Bihar and also Jamabandi was opened in his name and is paying rent to the State Government regularly. The above facts have been completely ignored by the learned appellate court as such impugned order is beyond the weight of evidence available on record. The learned appellate court has failed to appreciate that in the sale deed dated 7.8.1942, the name of father of the minor sellers, Sambhu Mahto and Sahdeo Mahto is mentioned. The appellate court further failed to appreciate that the sale deed executed by de facto guardians of minor is void and came to erroneous finding on the basis of said void deed alleged to have been executed by de facto guardian of Sahdeo Mahto and Sambhu Mahto. Therefore, the judgement of the learned appellate court is absolutely perverse and liable to be set aside, and this appeal may be allowed.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=JWh84WYVV%2BM86K4sXzCHnwDcqDkhCf4R%2BMsBkq0gL7AvlWHxfyPYQv29ojSHp1Z0&caseno=SA/119/2002&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010007622002&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
