Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Debu Mondal - Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala Devi, d/o late Etwari Teli @ Mondal and ors. – Respondents
S.A. No.197 of 2020
Decided On : 21-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
An appellant not party to the original suit lacks locus standi to challenge the decree, which is binding only on the parties involved.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against judgment and decree of first appellate court - The appellant was not a party to the original suit and thus lacked locus standi to challenge the decree - The suit was for partition of self-acquired properties of Jhari Teli, and the courts below rightly dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. (Paras 2, 20, 22)
(B) Locus Standi - The appellant, not being a party to the original suit, cannot challenge the decree passed therein, as it does not bind him. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The suit involved a dispute over the partition of properties belonging to Jhari Teli, with the appellant claiming rights despite not being a party to the original suit. The trial court found the suit maintainable and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly determined the issues of non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, affirming the separate nature of Jhari Teli's property.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the suit and the appellant's standing to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant, not being a party to the original suit, had no standing to challenge the decree, which was binding only on the parties involved.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2020 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Jamtara in Civil Appeal No.28 of 2015.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff was not a party to Title Suit No.51 of 2000 which was filed in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-III, Jamtara by the respondent first party of this second appeal with a prayer for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession along with pro-forma defendants of the suit and in alternative for partition of the suit property.
4. The case of the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 51 of 2000 in brief is that the parties to the suit are Hindus and are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The suit schedule ‘A’ property was recorded exclusively in the name of Jhari Teli in the last survey settlement and Jhari Teli was having possession over the suit land. Jhari Teli and Bihari Teli grew trees over the suit land. Ahlad Teli, Jhari Teli and Bihari Teli are three brothers and their names were recorded in same jamabandi having separate possession over the parts of the land. The suit land was having separate possession of Jhari Teli. Ahlad Teli died in or about 1940 and shortly after the death of Ahlad Teli his wife also died. The two sons of Ahlad Teli namely Huro and Budhan also died leaving behind only Jaldo Devi who is the defendant no.2 as his heir; as wife of Budhan predeceased him. The defendant nos. 1 to 11 are the descendants and heirs of Huro. Jhari Teli died without any surviving issue and his wife predeceased him. So upon the death of Jhari Teli, the suit property devolved upon his surviving brother Bihari Teli. The plaintiffs are descendants of Bihari Teli. Jhari Teli during his lifetime entrusted the suit property to Bihari Teli by executing a village paper for the same on 02.06.1944. Jhari Teli was maintained by Bihari Teli and his family members. As the plaintiff no.1 adopted Dhaneshwar Mondal as her son, the principal defendants became hostile against the plaintiffs. During May-June, 1999, the principal defendants created disturbance of the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated. During the pendency of Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding, the principal defendants forcibly started raising two hutments on the suit plot no. 2185 however the hutments raised by the principal defendants are lying abandoned. The principal defendants also disturbed the cultivation of the land by the plaintiffs; hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
5. The principal defendants in their written statement besides challenging the maintainability of the suit further pleaded that Jhari Teli was one among the five brothers and the other two brothers being Teko Teli and Debi Teli who died before the settlement but their sons Chowa Teli, Burhan Teli and Bideshi Teli got their names recorded in the survey record.
6. The defendant nos. 1-6 in their written statement disputed the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs being incorrect and incomplete. These defendants further pleaded that upon the death of Jhari Teli, the suit property devolved upon his only surviving brother Ahlad Teli as Bihari Teli died in the year 1940 prior to Ahlad Teli. Janki Teli died in the year 1950 leaving behind his widow and two daughters Sohgi and Susari. Susari died issueless while Sohgi died leaving behind two sons Hemlal Mondal and Govind Mondal. These defendants also pleaded that Jhari Teli and his wife used to live with Ahlad Teli during his old age. These defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property.
7. The proforma defendant nos. 7 and 8 in their written statement admitted and adopted the written statement of the defendant nos.1-6.
8. The defendant nos.9, 10 and 11 in their written statement pleaded that Bud
