BUDHNI KUI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Collector, West Singhbhum dated 12th November, 2008 in Kolhan Title Suit No. 3/2002-2003(annexure 2 to the memo of petition) as well as against the order passed by Commissioner, Singhbhum, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa dated 19th March, 2009 in Kolhan Title Appeal No. 1 of 2008 (annexure 3 to the memo of petition).

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the original plaintiff was the husband of the present petitioner who has expired during the course of Kolhan Title Suit No. 3/2002-2003 and the present petitioner being the widow, was substituted as plaintiff. In the said Kolhan Title Suit No. 3/2002-2003. Three registered sale deeds were to be declared as null and void as they were fabricated documents which bare the left hand thumb impression of the husband of the present petitioner and therefore, as the original plaintiff has already expired, handwriting expert opinion will be necessary to ascertain whether the sale deeds, which were to be declared as null and void, bare the left thumb impression of the original plaintiff or not. These disputed documents can be compared with undisputed documents like plaint and attendance given in the said Kolhan Title Suit. Thus, disputed left thumb impression can always be matched or compared with undisputed documents where there is left hand thumb impression of original plaintiff and therefore, an application was moved before the Additional Deputy Collector, Chaibasa which was allowed vide order dated 29th November, 2006. An expert evidence was required to be taken on the aforesaid basis as per order dated 29th November, 2006, but, abruptly without there being any application by either of the parties, suo-motu, the Additional Deputy Collector, Chaibasa has recalled his earlier order and passed a fresh order on 12th November, 2007 and the application for getting opinion of hand-writing expert was dismissed. Against this order, an appeal was preferred bearing No. 1 of 2008 before Commissioner, Singhbhum, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa who has also not appreciated the aforesaid facts of the matter and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19th March, 2009. Even if the original plaintiff has expired, thumb impression on the disputed documents namely registered sale-deeds can be compared With undisputed documents namely plaint and presence register in Kolhan title Suit No. 3/2002-2003. These two documents bare left hand thumb impression of original plaintiff. This aspect of matter has not been appropriately considered by both the authorities below namely by Additional Deputy Collector, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum as well as by the Commissioner, Singhbhum, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa and hence, the order dated 12th November, 2007 (annexure 2 to the memo of petition) and order dated 19th March, 2009(annexure-3 to the memo of petition, respectively deserve to be quashed and set-aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not the original plaintiff, but, her husband was the original plaintiff, who has instituted Kolhan Title Suit No. 3/2002-2003. The husband of the petitioner has expired and therefore, there, is no question of now taking any evidence of the left thumb impression of the deceased plaintiff and therefore, the order dated 12th November, 2007 and order dated 19th March, 2009 (annexure-2 & 3 to the memo of petition respectively) passed by Additional Deputy Collector, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum as well as by the Commissioner, Singhbhum, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa are absolutely in consonance with the evidence of this case and therefore, both the orders not deserve to be quashed and set-aside.