RANCHI, India, June 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 6:

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

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2016 (decree sealed and signed on 27.06.2016) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. Trial court judgment is dated 28th July, 2015 (decree sealed and signed on 07.08.2015) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Sahibganj in Title Suit No. 30 of 2007.

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has referred to the order dated 09.11.2017 by which this appeal was admitted framing following substantial question of law:-

"Whether both the courts below have equally erred in holding title of the plaintiffs over Schedule "B" land without ascertaining the total area of Jamabandi No. 525 and the areas of Jamabandi No. 525/938 & 525/939?"

4. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the description of property as claimed by the plaintiffs was vague and therefore the learned courts could not have decreed the suit without ascertaining the total area of Jamabandi No. 525 and the areas of Jamabandi No. 525/938 and 525/939. The learned senior counsel has submitted that as per the sketch map it is not clear as to where is the location of Jamabandi No. 525/938 and 525/939 and therefore the substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts are fit to be set aside. The learned counsel has submitted that on account of vagueness in connection with suit property, both the judgments are fit to be set aside.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the suit property along with its boundary and sketch map was given in the map itself and there was no vagueness in the suit property and therefore the substantial question of law as framed is fit to be answered in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel has submitted that upon perusal of the plaint itself it would be apparent that there was no need for measurement of total areas of Jamabandi No. 525 and also the area of Jambandi No. 525/938 and Jamabandi No. 525/939.

6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon going through the materials on record this court finds that as per the plaint, the plaintiffs were the owners and possessor of land bearing J.B. No. 525/938 measuring 1-3-2 dhur recorded in the name of Sarju Gope and Indradeo Gope father of the plaintiff nos. 5 and 6 and J.B. No. 525/939 measuring 1-3-2 dhur of Mouza Sobhanpur Ganga Prasad recorded in the name of plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 and same has been described in Schedule-A of the plaint with boundaries .

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=7yg5D%2FmJmLJFbv9l4Wl3vUxPJaemGsq62k3Q7Y0CYo2BPF81M9sW7Rbt8ycOcgLB&caseno=SA/350/2016&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010243592016&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.