Advocates:
['SACHIDANAND DAS', '', 'R C SAHU', 'R S MAZUMDAR', '', 'KALYAN BANERJEE', 'YOGESH MODI', 'CHAITALI CHATTERJEE SINHA']

1 S.A. No. 128 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No.128 of 2002

------

Sardar Indrajit Singh & Ors.

....

....

…. Appellants

Versus

Azima Khatoon & Ors.

....

....

.... Respondents

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate

: Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate

: Ms. Omiya Anusha, Advocate

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

Order No.11 Dated- 09.11.2022

Heard the parties.

It transpires that the respondent no. 1(a) has died and the

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent no. 1(d)

has also died.

Registry is directed to mention the word dead against the

respondent no. 1(a) and 1(d) in the cause title of the appeal memo with

red ink.

Sonu-Gunjan/-

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

1

S.A. No. 128 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No.128 of 2002

------

1. Sardar Indrajit Singh, son of Late Amar Singh

2(a) Gyan Kaur

2(b) Harvinder Singh

[Serial no. 2(a) widow and 2(b) son of Late Sardar Harbhajan Singh @

Sardar Habhajan Singh Saluja, both resident of 67 Gandhi Road,

Dhanbad, P.S. –Dhansar, P.O. –Dhanbad, District -Dhanbad

....

....

…. Appellants

Versus

1(a) Dead (Expunged vide order dated 09.11.2022)

1(b) Abdul Bari Ansari

1(c) Abdul Rashid Ansari

[Sl. No. 1(b) & 1(c) both sons of Late Abdul Gani]

1(d) Dead (Expunged vide order dated 09.11.2022)

1(e) Sultan Khatoon, daughter of Late Abdul Gani

All are residents of Waseypur, Pergana –Jharia, Sub-registry, P.O. &

P.S. –Dhanbad, District –Dhanbad.

....

....

.... Respondents

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate

: Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate

: Ms. Omiya Anusha, Advocate

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

By the Court:-

1.

Heard the parties.

2.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated

23.07.2002, passed by the Additional District Judge -III, Dhanbad in

Title Appeal No. 42 of 1987 whereby and where under by a judgment

of reversal, the learned first appellate court allowed the appeal and set

aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the

learned trial court being the 4^th Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad in Title

Suit No. 66 of 1981/2 of 1986 dated 14.04.1987 and directed the

2 S.A. No. 128 of 2002

respondents to vacate the tenanted premises within 90 days from the

date of the judgment.

3.

The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the tenanted

premises belonged to Ram Dular Jaiswara who purchased the

tenanted premises by deed of sale no. 276 of 1943 and constructed the

premises described in Schedule 8A9. The defendants were inducted as

tenants by Ram Dular Jaiswara in respect of Schedule 8B9 premises of

the plaint which is part and parcel of the premises described in

Schedule 8A9 of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs.350/- per month.

Ram Dular Jaiswara by a registered deed of sale dated 15.01.1975 sold

the land and premises described in Schedule 8A9 of the plaint along

with the premises described in Schedule 8B9 of the plaint to the

plaintiff and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff since

15.01.1975 and thus since 15.01.1975, the plaintiff became the owner of

the tenanted premises. After the said sale, Ram Dular Jaiswara by

registered notice through his Advocate informed the defendant –

appellants of the sale of the land to the