Sujit Narayan Prasad,J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which the order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-2) passed in Title Appeal No.19 of 2010 by Additional District Judge, Ramgarh is under challenge, whereby and whereunder application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 51 has been rejected.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed Title Appeal No.133 of 2001 for declaration of title over 35 decimals of land in Plot no.432, Khata no.23 of village Ramgarh but acording to the petitioners the entire 5.38 acres of land belongs to the petitioners Board which has come into existence in the year 1941. The entire land was given by the Court of Wards in favour of the petitioners (Board) and was vested in the State under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1950, during the continuance of Court of Wards, the Manager, Ramgarh (Court of Wards) granted a lease dated 02.06.1931 to one Dublin University to use the land measuring 5.38 acres in hospital and horticulture purpose, for a period of 15 years on payment of nominal rent and as such the said land did not came in Khas possession of Kamakhya Narayan Singh, the landlord. It is the further case of the petitioners that wife of Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh, Maharani Lalita Rajlaxmi filed T.S. No.08 of 1964 claiming right, title and interest over 5.38 acres of land in which the petitioners-Board was made defendant no.33. In the said suit in paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff has admitted that the land measuring 5.38 acres comprising Plot no.440, 431, 436, 437, 432, 438, 439 including building premises and outhouse were transferred to the Cantonment Board. It was further stated that the suit property along with other lands was given to her by way of Kharposh by Raja Ramgarh. It is the further case of the petitioners that prior to T.S No.133 of 2001 one Harinarayan Tiwari has filed T.A. No.09 of 1989 for declaration of right, title and interest over the portion of the suit land which was decreed in favour of Harinarayan Tiwari-plaintiff but T.S. No.18 of 2000 preferred by the petitioners was allowed on 28.06.2006 and the judgment and decree passed in favour of Harinarayan Tiwari in T.S. No.09 of 1989 has been set aside against which the said Harinarayan Tiwari preferred second appeal before this Court being S.A. No.226 of 2006 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2009. The plaintiff in the present suit has admitted that he was one of the witnesses in T.S No.09 of 1989 filed by Harinarayan Tiwari, therefore, has full knowledge about the judgment passed in T.S. No.09 of 1989, T.A. No.18 of 2000 and S.A. No.266 of 2006 but the said T.S No.133 of 2001 was decreed vide judgment dated 01.04.2010 against which the petitioners have preferred title appeal being T.A. No.19 of 2010. In the appeal a petition has been filed by the petitioners under Order XLI Rule 27 praying therein that the certified copy of judgment and decree passed in T.A. No. 18 of 2000 by Additional District Judge, FTC-VI, Hazaribagh and certified copy of the order dated 01.04.2009 passed in S.A No.266 of 2006 by the High Court and decree passed in T.S. No.87 of 2001 by Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribagh may be taken as evidence.
(3.) Rejoinder to that petition has been filed making objection therein and on appreciating the stand taken by the parties the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 has been rejected by the impugned order which is under scrutiny by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;