IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 597 of 2004
Kokia & Others ........Appellants
Versus
Dindayal Munda ..Respondent
Coram :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
-------
6/24.3.2009
Heard.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree
dated 23.6.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj in Title
Appeal No. 9 of 2000, affirming the judgment and decree dated
28.4.2000, passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Sahibganj in Title
Suit No. 26 of 1988.
3. Mr. Alok Lal, appearing for the appellants, challenged the
impugned judgments on various grounds.
4. The plaintiffs-appellants filed this suit for declaration of their
right, title and ownership over the suit lands of Girdhari and for a
declaration that under the tribal law the issueless widow had only the
right of maintenance.
5. The trial court dismissed the suit, after considering the
evidences on records.
6. The appellants filed the said appeal. After considering the
respective cases of the parties and the evidences on record, the appellate
court affirmed the findings of the trial court. It was held, inter alia by the
courts below that in the judgment passed in earlier suit being Title Suit
No. 7/1971 between the same parties for cancellation of adoption of the
defendant by Sukri, it was held that the parties to the suit i.e. ancestors
of the plaintiffs and the defendant were governed by the Hindu Law and
not by Customary Law of Santhal. The said findings became final
between the parties. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants
that even if the parties were Hindu, Kari being daughter of Girdhari
inherited the property of Girdhari and Sukri, the widow of pre-deceased
son of Girdhari had only right to lifetime maintenance. The learned
courts below inter alia held that Kari filed a suit for declaration of title
and recovery of possession against Sukri, which was dismissed and that
even from the year 1945, Kari was out of possession of the suit property.
Kari filed Title suit no. 10 of 1997 against Sukri, again, for declaration of
title and recovery of possession. The said suit was also dismissed. It was
found that the court of competent jurisdiction finally decided that Kari
did not acquire any title in suit property and was out of possession from
1945. In Title Suit No. 5 of 1995 also, the S.D.O. Rajmahal held that Kari
did not acquire title and was not in the possession of the suit property.
Thus, it was held on the basis of the oral and documentary evidences
brought on the record that the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction
repeatedly decided that Kari did not acquire any title in the suit property
and she was out of possession from 1945.
7. No grounds have been made out for interfering with the said
concurrent findings of facts correctly recorded by both the courts below.
In my opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this second
appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs.
( R.K. Merathia, J)
Rakesh/