JANAM SINGH KUDADA & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 27-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
JANAM SINGH KUDADA & ANR.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2575 of 2001)
AUGUST 27, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Suit:
Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs were rightful owners
of half share of the suit property -  Suit decreed in respect of the
entire suit property - Applying Wilkinson's Rule i.e. accepting the
award passed by majority members of Panchayat - Appellate
Authority affirmed the order -  Writ petition was dismissed by Single
Judge of High Court - Division Bench of High Court affirmed the
order of Single Judge - Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: In the
suit plaintiffs had claimed only half the suit property, hence decree
awarding anything beyond the claim is liable to be set aside to that
extent - In view of s. 2 of Kolhan Civil Justice Act also, the
concurrent judgments, made on the basis of Wilkinson's Rule
cannot be set aside -  Bihar Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulation and
Validation) Act, 1978 -  s. 2.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:  In view of the fact that it is only half the property
which went to the plaintiffs, as referred to in the plaint, that was
the subject matter of the Suit, the decree will have to be set
aside to the extent that it awards anything beyond this.  In view
of section 2 of Bihar Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulation and
Validation) Act, 1978 as well, which admittedly has not been
challenged by the appellants, it is difficult at this point of time
to set aside the concurrent judgments which were made on the
basis of application of Wilkinson's Rules. [Paras 8, 10] [1021-
A-B; 1022-A]
Mora Ho v. State of Bihar and Others AIR 2000 Patna
101 - referred to.
1016
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1016
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
Case Law Reference
AIR 2000 Patna 101
referred to
Para 1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2575
of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2000 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench in L.P.A. No. 251 of
2000(R).
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Nandini Sen, Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Jayesh Gaurav, Gopal
Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. After hearing learned counsel on behalf of the appellants for
some time, and after having gone through the relevant provisions of
the Constitution of India, the Wilkinson Rules and the Full Bench
Judgment in 'Mora Ho v. State of Bihar and Others' reported as AIR
2000 Patna 101, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to go
into the applicability and/or validity of the Wilkinson's Rules in this matter
for two reasons.
2. First and foremost, as is correctly pointed out by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants in the Suit,
what was claimed in the Suit was only half the Suit property and not
the entirety of the property as follows:
3. Paragraph 3 of the plaint states "Sura Ho died issueless and
the lines of the parties became entitled to half and half of these lands".
This was the suit property over which the plaintiffs claimed a
declaration that they are rightful owners and for confirmation of their
possession, and consequentially, correction of the entry made in the
Record of Rights of 1963.
4. Despite this being the claim in the plaint, by an order dated
30.03.1977, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, decreed
the Suit in accordance with the award of the  majority members of the
Panchayat, and held as follows:
JANAM SINGH KUDADA & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
“I therefore come to the conclusion that the suit lands have
been wrongly recorded in the names of the defendants
during the recent survey and settlement operation. The
survey authorities have not considered the documents which
were in favour of the plaintiffs.
When the plaintiffs come in possession of the suit lands after
the demarcation on 5.10.20 by Kolai Ho, Amin no actions
were taken by the defendant no. 1 and the father of
defendant no. 2 to go in appeal against the demarcation.
They also did not go in appeal against the orders of mutation,
of correction of Zamanbandi passed in case no. 1139/20-
21. Therefore whatever orders have been passed in Civil
case no. 166-13, 893-14-15, 670/20-21 and 1139/20-21 still
hold good because they have not been either set aside or
modified by any competent court.  After the plaintiffs came
in possession of the suit lands in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.