State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Another vs Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri Krishna Singh And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the following points arise for consideration in statutory second appeals S.A No. 94 of 2019 and in S.A No. 114 of 2019:

(i) Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

(ii) If the suit was barred by limitation, whether the learned Revenue Officer had the power to condone the delay in filing the suit?

(iii) Whether the suit was maintainable on account of absence of notice under Section 80 CPC?

(iv) Whether the suit before the Revenue Officer could have proceeded in view of pendency of Title Suit No.119 of 2014 challenging the two said deeds no. 24951 dated 1.10.1970 and 25097 dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud which was filed after institution of the suit before the Revenue Officer but before its disposal on 24.03.2018?

(v) What would be the consequence of suit filed by respondent no. 39 (intervenor) at the stage of pendency of the 1st appeal being title suit no. 201 of 2018 challenging the two said deeds no. 24951 dated 1.10.1970 and 25097 dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud?

(vi) “Whether the decision in Suit No.544 of 2001 is binding on the parties?

S.A. No. 94 of 2019

The learned counsel for the respondent no.26 in S.A. No. 94 of 2019 has submitted that the said respondent is concerned with Khata No.401/152 and Khesra No.2509 area 1.04 acres, 2510 area 0.77 acres and 4081 area 1.81 acres out of 5.80 acres. She submits that the respondent no.26 was contesting the suit. She has submitted that while deciding the aforesaid points for determination, if it is held that the suit was not barred by limitation and the suit was maintainable, then another point for determination would arise in the present case i.e. “Whether the decision in Suit No.544 of 2001 is binding on the parties?

Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate submits that respondent nos.14 to 32 in S.A. No.94 of 2019 have filed their separate appeal bearing S.A. No.114 of 2019, challenging the same impugned judgement passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad. The learned counsel has submitted that respondent nos.14 to 32 of S.A. No.94 of 2019 did not challenge the order passed by the Revenue Officer before the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad as they were not aggrieved by the said judgement, but they were the respondents in the said case and now they have filed a separate appeal against the 1st appellate order. She submits that her case was also covered by the earlier order passed in Case No.544 of 2001 and therefore, the same point for determination would arise for their case also as has been suggested with respect to respondent no.26 and their case would be covered by the case of respondent no.26.

In S.A. No.94 of 2019, intervention application has been allowed and Kumari Ratnakar, wife of Jainiwas Pandey has been added as respondent no.39. The order allowing the intervention is dated 16.08.2023 and the court while allowing the intervention application has observed that “having heard the submission made at bar and after going through the materials in the record, the fact remains undisputed that intervenor has purchased the part of the suit property and will be affected by the ultimate judgement that would be passed in this Second Appeal. The intervenor undertakes to abide by the judgement passed in this appeal.” This intervenor has filed a separate appeal being S.A. No.99 of 2019.

The learned counsel for the intervenor has submitted that since the intervention in S.A. No.94 of 2019 has been allowed, the right of respondent no.39 in the said case stands protected, but S.A. No.99 of 2019 has been filed only by way of precaution.

The learned counsel has submitted that since the intervention in S.A. No.94 of 2019 has been allowed, therefore, the leave to appeal in the S.A. No.99 of 2019 be also allowed, which is through I.A. No.819 of 2020.

The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there can be no dispute that the appellant in S.A. No.99 of 2019 will be guided by the judgement to be passed in S.A. No.94 of 2019 by virtue of the order dated 16.08.2023.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that the application for intervention in S.A. No.94 of 2019 has already been allowed with observation that Kumari Ratnakar would be guided by the judgement passed in S.A. No.94 of 2019. In such circumstances, there is no point to pursue a separate second appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant in S.A. No.99 of 2019 has submitted that immediately after passing of the impugned judgement Kumari Ratnakar has filed a Title Suit challenging the sale deed no.24951 and 25097 both of the year 1970 by filing separate title suit bearing no.201 of 2018 alleging fraud. He has submitted that the same sale deeds are also under challenge in Title Suit No.119 of 2014 alleging fraud. He submits that the filing of the separate suit by Kumari Ratnakar having been filed after the disposal of the suit could not be brought on record before the learned 1st appellate court as the intervenor was not a party before the learned court. However, it is not in dispute that in the intervention application filed in S.A. No.94 of 2019, the fact about Title Suit No.201 of 2018 has already been placed on record.

This Court is of the view that the right, if any, of Kumari Ratnakar stands protected by virtue of the order passed in S.A. No.94 of 2019 and therefore this Court is not inclined to grant leave to Kumari Ratnakar to file separate Second Appeal i.e. S.A. No.99 of 2019. It has also been observed in S.A. No.94 of 2019 that her case will be guided by the judgement to be passed in S.A. No.94 of 2019. Further, it has also been brought on record about the pendency of the two Title Suits i.e. Title Suit No.201 of 2018 and Title Suit No.119 of 2014 where the suits have been filed alleging fraud with respect to the two sale deeds.

In view of the aforesaid, I.A No.819 of 2020 seeking leave to appeal filed in S.A. No.99 of 2019 is dismissed, and accordingly, S.A. No.99 of 2019 is disposed of.

S.A. No.114 of 2019

As  per  the  records,  respondent  no.1  has  appeared  by  filing Vakalatnama. So far as respondent nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 are concerned, they have either served personally or through their close relative or they have refused to accept notice.

Accordingly, the service upon the said respondents is accepted as valid.

So far as respondent nos.4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are concerned, they have expired and the proceeding stands abated in terms of order dated 03.04.2023.

I.A. No.5136 of 2019 in S.A. No.114 of 2019

This petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the Second Appeal.

The learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objection so far as condonation of delay is concerned.

Accordingly, I.A. No.5136 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay is allowed.

The learned counsel for the State is present.

S.A. No.94 of 2019

As per the records, respondent nos.1, 26, 36, 39 have appeared by filing Vakalatnamas. So far as respondent nos.4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35 are concerned, they have either served personally or through their close relative or they have refused to accept notice. Vide order dated 19.04.2024, notice upon respondent nos.33 and 34 is declared valid.

Accordingly, the service upon the said respondents is accepted as valid.

So far as respondent nos.2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 37 are concerned, they have expired and the proceedings against them stand abated in terms of order dated 24.01.2023. Respondent nos.27, 31 as well as respondent no.38, have expired and the proceedings against them stand abated vide orders dated 16.08.2023 and 13.08.2024 respectively.

I.A. No.4941 of 2024 in S.A. No. 94 of 2019

I.A. No.4941 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.39 for issuance of order of inquiry for verification of sale deed no.24951 dated 01.10.1970 and Sale Deed No.25097 dated 06.10.1970 by alleging that fraud has been committed. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and submitted that once the sale deed is already subject matter of Title Suit No.201 of 2018, then there is no question of any inquiry by this Court. He has also submitted that even for allegation of fraud, evidence is required.

Considering the aforesaid submission, this Court is not inclined to allow I.A. No.4941 of 2024 as Title Suit No.119 of 2014 and Title Suit No.201 of 2018 are already pending.

Post these cases on 03.11.2025 to be taken as a first case at 10.30 a.m.