Point of Law: Civil Suit - Additional Evidence - Wherever additional evidence is allowed the court shall record reason for its admission.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

F.A. No. 43 of 2012

1. Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011/06.01.2012, in T.S. No. 76 of 2006 by Senior Civil Judge-I, Dhanbad.

2. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the present appellants. Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are the Plaintiffs including their legal representatives. Respondent Nos. 10 to 15 are the intervenor defendants (D-5 to D-10) from whom the D-1 to D-3 claim to derive title by sale. Notices were issued on respondent Nos. 10-15 vide order dated 15.04.2015 and substituted service was effected by publication of notice in the newspaper which were declared to be validly served on these respondents. Respondent No. 20 State of Jharkhand, Respondent No. 21 - D.C. Dhanbad and Respondent No. 22-Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (JIADA) have been impleaded vide order dated 29.11.2019. Respondent No. 23 is M/s Asarfi Hospital Pvt. Ltd in whose favour 11.92 acre of Gairabad Khas Khata land was transferred by Respondent No. 22 has been impleaded vide order dated 03.03. 2022. Claim of R-23 depends on the State claim over the plots transferred to it.

3. Respondent Nos. 16 to 18 impleaded in this appeal vide order dated 05.10.2012, claim their title on the basis of compromise decree passed in T.S. No. 92 of 2010 for specific performance of agreement brought against R1 to R5 of the present first appeal from whom R 19 claim title on the basis of registered deed of sale. The subject matter of property is part of the suit property of T.S. No. 76/2006. Their inter-se dispute is not the subject matter of the present appeal, but shall be decided on the basis of the final outcome of Civil Revision No. 30 of 2010 arising out of Title Suit No. 92 of 2010 which has been heard along with this appeal.

4. Proforma defendant No. 4 is Banibrata Paul against whom no relief has been claimed.

5. The suit was originally filed by Shri Nirmal Kumar Paul (since dead) now the legal representatives, Rabindra Nath Paul, Binoy Krishna Paul and Amiya Kumar Paul impleading M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2), M/s Karmayogi Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahakari Samiti (D-3) and Shri Banibrata Paul (D-4) as proforma defendant. Later Dhirendra Nath Dutta and Others (D-5 to D-10) were impleaded in the suit on their petition under Order 1 Rule 10 vide order dated 17.07.2009. Nirmal Kumar Paul after his death during the pendency of the suit was substituted by Bani Brata Paul and Others.

6. The parties will be referred by their placement in the original suit and shall include the legal representatives substituted at different stages. The parties who have been impleaded in appeal shall be referred to accordingly.

7. The plaintiffs (R-1 to R-9) and proforma defendant Banibrata Paul, brought the suit for the declaration of right, title, interest and possession of their respective shares in the suit property as mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ and also for the declaration that the defendants had not acquired right, title and interest by virtue of the sale deeds and have no right to interfere with their peaceful possession and any sale made in respect of Schedule ‘A’ property or any portion thereof made by the Judgment debtors of Execution Case No. 366 of 1931, 492 of 1935, 144 of 1938, 138 of 1940 and 140 of 1940, is null and void.

8. A further prayer has been made confirming the possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant over the land as mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his persons, his agent, contractor etc. from making construction over any part of the land as mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ so that there should not be any obstacle in the possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants.

9. Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ lands have been detailed in the plaint, comprising a total area of 85.49 acres and 1.50 acres respectively.

10. The plai