S.A.No.21 of 2005

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No.21 of 2005

------

(Against the judgment dated 15.10.2004 {decree signed on

28.10.2004} passed by learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court No.-I, Gumla, in Title Appeal No.27 of 2003)

------

Junathan Kindo son of Denial Kindo

Resident of village- Jalka, P.O. and P.S. Sisai, District- Gumla.

....

....

…. Plaintiff / Appellant /Appellant

Versus

1. Jhapia Oraon Son of Koma Bhagat

2. (a) Most. Tetri Oraoin, widow of late Mina Oraon.

2. (b) Jagat pal

2. (c) Ghura

2. (d) Jhabo

All (b to d) sons of Mina Oraon. All {Sr. No.2 (a) to 2 (d)}

residents of village- Jonko, P.O. & P.S.- Sisai, district- Gumla.

3. Ranju Oraon

4. Kandru Oraon

5. Bandhan Oraon. All (Sr. No.3 to 5) son of Jhapia Oraon, All

resident of vill- Jalka, P.S. Sisai, Dist. Gumla.

....

.... …. Defendants / Respondents / Respondents

6. Gidyon Kindo son of Danial Kindo, resident of Jalka, P.O. and P.S.

Sisai Dist. Gumla.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla

....

.... …. Defendant /Proforma Respondent / Proforma

Respondent

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Praveen Kr. Verma, Advocate

Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate

------

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

By the Court:-

Heard the parties.

S.A.No.21 of 2005

2

2.

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated

15.10.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Court No.-I, Gumla, in Title Appeal No.27 of 2003 whereby and

where under the learned First Appellate Court in the judgment of

concurrence, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and

decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Gumla

in Title Suit No.30 of 1998 dated 30.06.2003.

3.

The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff and the proforma

defendant No.7 purchased the suit land from Babu Shivnarayan Jaiswal

and they came in possession thereof and are continuing in possession of

the same. After purchase, the names of the plaintiff and the proforma

defendant No.7 was mutated in revenue sirista of Government of Bihar

and rent receipts are issued regularly in their favour. It is further the case

of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.5 to 7 have no concern with the suit

land but they wanted to create trouble for the plaintiff and the proforma

defendant No.7 by disturbing them and for which they initiated

proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was later on converted to a

proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the Executive Magistrate,

Gumla disposed of the said proceeding declaring the possession of the

plaintiff over the suit land.

4.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.1 to 5

preferred Criminal Revision vide Criminal Revision No.23 of 1988, which

was heard and dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gumla vide order

dated 20.03.1998. Being misguided by someone, the proforma defendant

No.7 filed an application under Section 71 (A) of the Chota Nagpur

Tenancy Act before the S.D.O., Gumla which was dismissed on 05.02.1989

by holding and observing that the suit lands are in possession of the

plaintiff and the proforma defendant No.7 and also the proceeding under

Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been decided in favour of the plaintiff. Hence,

there is no necessity for a proceeding under Section 71 (A) of the Chota

Nagpur Tenancy Act. The plaintiff further pleaded that the plaintiff and

the proforma defendant No.7 have been in peaceful cultivation of the suit

land but the defendants are threatening the plaintiff and the proforma

S.A.No.21 of 2005

3

defendant No.7 in order to f