2025:JHHC:15623 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 60 of 2023 1. Kudus Mirza, aged about 56 years. 2. Hadish Mirza, aged about 54 years . Both sons of Late Sukar Mirza, resident of Village- Bhadwa, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu (Ghato), District-Hazaribagh, Now Ramgarh. … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Kalim Mirza, son of Late Safi Mirza. 2. Ugni Devi, wife of late Indu Sao. 3. Madan Prasad. 4. Taleshwar Prasad. 5. Jaspal Prasad. 6. Tunu Prasad. 7. Binod Prasad. 8. Bina Sagar Prasad. (3) to (8) all sons of Late Indu Sao (1) to (8) all resident of Village-Bhadwa, P.S.- Mandu, District- Hazaribagh, now Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 9. Sakuntala Devi, Daughter of Late Indu Sao, Wife of Narain Sao, resident of Village-Marar, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 10. Usha Devi, Daughter of Late Indu Sao, Wife of Dilip Sao, resident of Village- Chutupalu, P.O. & P.S.- Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate --- 14/13.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. 3. This appeal has been filed against concurrent findings recorded by both the courts. 4. The learned District Judge-I, Ramgarh being the 1st appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs vide judgement dated 31.01.2023 (decree signed on 13.02.2023) in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2012. The trial court judgment dated 30.04.2012 (decree signed on 11.05.2012) has been passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior 2025:JHHC:15623 2 Division)-VI, Hazaribagh in Title Suit no. 47 of 2004 whereby the suit has been dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed for declarations that the sale deed No. 16416 dated 29.10.1960 executed by Jadua Bhuiyan in favour of Safi Mian was illegal and void and also for declaration that the sale deed No. 14564 dated 29.09.2000 by Kalim Mirza in favour of Indu Sao was also illegal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit land was settled in favour of one Sohra Bhuiyan and in the record of rights the name of his sons Ramdhania Bhuiyan @ Dhokla Bhuiyan and Gola Bhuiyan was recorded but they voluntarily surrendered the land to the ex-landlord by way of written surrender deed in 1989 as per Hindi Calendar which is corresponding to 1932 as per English calendar and after that the ex-landlord resumed possession. The ancestor of the plaintiff namely Wali Mirza was allowed possession with respect to the schedule A property and thus the plaintiffs had the right, title and interest with respect to the suit property. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the materials on record, particular the fact about surrender, have not been properly appreciated and therefore the second appeal be admitted for final hearing by framing substantial question of law and notices be issued. 8. The case of the Plaintiffs as per trial court:- A. The plaintiffs case in brief is that one Wali Mirza the ancestor of plaintiffs had two sons namely, Rafique Mirza and Safi Mirza; the lands of Khata No. 69 Plot No. 248, area-11 decimals and Plot No. 406, area 57 decimals were recorded in the name of Sohra Bhuiyan son of Bhado Bhuiyan in the survey records of right ; legal heirs of recorded tenant namely Ramdhania Bhuiyan @ Dhokla Bhuiyan and Gola Bhuiyan had voluntarily surrendered the aforesaid land to the Ex-landlord by virtue of written surrender deed dated Man-chait sudi 7 Roj, 2025:JHHC:15623 3 1989 Sal and the Ex-landlord resumed possession and the ancestor of the plaintiffs namely Wali Mirza was allowed possession and he was coming in possession of lands of plot No. 406, Khata No. 69, area-57 decimals which is described in Schedule-A. B. It is also asserted by the plaintiffs that Rafique Mirza married Jaibun Nisa and his father Wali Mirza had given 57 decimals of land of Khata No. 69, Plot No. 406 of village- Bhadwa to Jaibun Nisa as ‘Muh Dekhayee’ by virtue of Kabulnama and thereafter she came and continued in physical as well as cultivating possession over the same. It is said that aforesaid Jaibun Nisa sold and transferred 3 ½ decimals of land out of total 57 decimals by virtue of registered sale deed No.12940 dated 09.09.68 to Sri Khem Singh Rai who came and continued in possession over the purchased land. C. The plaintiffs asserted that they jointly sold and transferred 27 decimals of land out of remaining 53 ½ decimals of land by virtue of registered sale deed vide sale deed No.5320 dated 08.04.2003 for consideration of Rs.20,000/-to Md. Shamim Mirza who after purchase came and continued in possession over purchased land. It is said that the purchaser Md. Shamim Mirza got a boundary wall constructed over his purchased land and rent receipt are being issued to him. D. It is further asserted that defendant No. 2 Indu Sao (Original defendant No.2 who died during pendency of suit and his legal heirs were substituted as defendant No. 2 to 2H) disclosed on 15.04.04 that he had purchased 20 decimals of land from Kalim Mirza through registered sale deed No. 14864 dated 20.09.2000 for consideration of Rs.12,000/- and on being asked by the plaintiffs to produce the deed, the defendant No.2 did not do so. It is said that on verification it was found that Book No.1 Volume No.45, pages 216 to 219 contain a fake sale deed No. 16416. 2025:JHHC:15623 4 E. It is asserted that on 25.07.04 the Defendant No.2 came over the land with labourers and started digging foundation which was protested and stopped by the plaintiffs and a Panchayat was called on 30.04.04 and defendant No. 2 showed his sale deed and then the panches advised the plaintiffs to go to the Civil Court and then the plaintiffs obtained certified copy of the sale deed No. 14864 dated 20.09.2000 executed by Kalim Mirza on the basis of another fictitious sale deed No. 16416 of the year, 1960 dated 29.10.1960. It is said that the impugned sale deeds are collusive, illegal and void ab-initio and neither the vendor had title nor the vendee has got any title and defendant No.2 has made false entry in the rent receipts of other land and the number of receipt No.7432195 is forged. F. The cause of action is said to have arisen on 15.04.2004 and then on 30.04.2004. 9. The case of the Defendants as per trial court:- A. The defendants filed written statement and asserted that the suit was not maintainable in its present form and it is barred by law of limitation or adverse possession and there is absolutely no cause of action for suit. B. Further the case of the defendants is that it is false to say that the legal heirs of recorded raiyat had surrendered the suit lands to the Ex-landlord and Wali Mirza was allowed possession. It is said that the legal heirs of recorded raiyat inherited the suit property and remained in peaceful possession over the said land till 28.10.1960 and those legal heirs namely Jadu Bhuiyan, Nathuwa Bhuiyan, Paduwa Bhuiyan, Randhir Bhuiyan @ Ghaghra Bhuiyan sold the suit lands to Safi Mirza through registered sale deed No. 16416 dated 29.10.60 and put him in possession and he continued in peaceful possession thereafter and his title was also perfected by adverse possession on 29.10.72. It is said that name of the purchaser was mutated in the office of the Anchal Adhikari, Mandu and after his death his 2025:JHHC:15623 5 son came and continued in title and possession over the suit lands. C. Further it is asserted that Kalim Mirza was in need of money and as such he sold the suit lands to Indu Sao through registered sale deed No. 14584 dated 20.09.2000 for consideration and thereafter his name was mutated in the office of the C.O., Mandu and he has been paying rent to the State regularly. D. The defendant No.2 has full and unimpeachable right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands and plaintiffs were fully aware of his sale deed of the year 2000 as well as the factum of rent receipts being issued in his favour. 10. The following issues framed for consideration by the learned trial court which are as follows:- I. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title and possession over the suit land? III. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or adverse possession? IV. Whether the sale deed No. 16416 dated 29.10.1960 by Jadu Bhuiyan in favour of Safi Mian is illegal, inoperative and not binding up the plaintiffs? V. Whether the sale deed No. 14584 dated 20.09.2000 is inoperative, illegal and liable to be cancelled? VI. Whether the suit land were given in surrender to the Ex- landlord by written surrender? VII. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relief as prayed for? 11. There are some oral and documentary evidence produced by the side of the plaintiffs which is as follows:- Oral Evidence on behalf of Plaintiffs PW-1 Ajmat Mirza PW-2 Hadish Mirza PW-3 Jabir Mallick PW-4 Bihuti Bhushan Tiwary PW-5 Hidayat Ali PW-6 Sikandar Mallik PW-7 Sd. Shamin PW-8 Anand Kumar 2025:JHHC:15623 6 Documentary evidences on behalf of Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 Kaboolnama Exhibit 2 Original Sale deed No. 5320 dated 08.04.2003 Exhibit 3 and 3/a Two government rent receipts Exhibit 4 Original receipt for fees deposited for search and copy. Exhibit 5 & 6 Certified copy of sale deed No. 6143 of 1960. Exhibit 5/A Certified copy of sale deed No. 12940 of 1968. 12. There are some oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the defendants which is as follows:- Oral evidence produced on behalf of Defendants DW-1 Indu Sao DW-2 Loknath Mahto DW-3 Kalim Mirza DW-4 Raushan Mirza DW-5 Vijay Kishore Prasad Documentary evidence produced on behalf of Defendants Exhibit-A Certified copy of sale deed No. 16416 dated 29.10.1960 Exhibit-B to B/7 Eight government rent receipts Exhibit-C to C/1 Original sale deed No. 14584 dated 20.09.2000 and 9402 dated 21.05.2007 13. The learned 1st appellate court has framed the following points for determination, which are as follows:- Point No. I:- Whether learned court below has rightly discussed the suit lands was surrendered to the Ex-landlord by written surrender or not? Point No. II:- Whether the learned court below has rightly discussed the issue No. III, IV & V that the suit is barred by law of limitations and plaintiffs cannot get declaration due to barred by law of limitation that the sale deed of the year 1960 and 2000 are illegal? Point No. III:- Whether the court below has committed error in holding that plaintiffs are not entitled for relief or reliefs as claimed? 2025:JHHC:15623 7 14. With regard to point No. 1, the learned 1st appellate court held that the plaintiffs have not able to produce any chit of paper to show the surrender of the suit land as well as other lands in favour of the landlord. The so-called surrender deed has not been brought on record on behalf of the plaintiffs. The learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to bring on record the said surrender deed and hence, the learned trial court has rightly held the issue against the plaintiffs. 15. With regard to point No. II, the learned 1st appellate court held that the suit has been filed on 02.06.2004 challenging the sale deed of the year 1960 and sale deed of the year 2000 but the relief was barred by limitation and was of the view that the learned trial court has rightly decided that the suit was barred by limitation. 16. With regard to point No. III, the learned 1st appellate court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to right, title, interest over the suit land and plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as prayed. The learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal. 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that as per the case of the plaintiffs, they have claimed that the property was surrendered to the ex-landlord in the year 1932 by the legal heirs and successors of Sohra Bhuiyan and then it remained in possession of the ancestor of the plaintiffs namely Wali Mirza and they are claiming through Wali Mirza. 18. On the other hand, the defendants denied the claim of surrender and also the claim of the plaintiffs that Wali Mirza was allowed to remain in possession. Rather, the defendants claimed that they are the legal heirs and successors of the recorded raiyat namely Jadu Bhuiyan, Nathuwa Bhuiyan, Paduwa Bhuiyan and Randhir Bhuiyan @ Ghaghra Bhuiyan who sold their property to Safi Mirza. The defendants were the legal heirs of the recorded raiyat and inherited the suit property and remained in peaceful possession till 28.10.1960 and the legal heirs namely Jadu Bhuiyan, Nathuwa Bhuiyan, Paduwa Bhuiyan and 2025:JHHC:15623 8 Randhir Bhuiyan @ Ghaghra Bhuiyan sold their property to Safi Mirza through registered sale deed No. 16416 dated 29.10.1960 and put him in possession and he continued in peaceful possession. It is their further case that Kalim Mirza son Safi Mirza was in need of money who sold the suit property to Indu Sao through registered sale deed No. 14584 dated 20.09.2000 and thereafter Indu Sao also remained in possession of the property. 19. The learned court while considering the plea of surrender as raised by the plaintiffs has clearly recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit land was given in surrender to ex- landlord by written surrender and decided issue No. VI against the plaintiffs. The learned trial court has also recorded that neither the surrender deed was brought on record nor the same is said to have been registered nor there is any document to show acceptance of surrender by the zamindar. During the course of arguments also, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any perversity in connection with the findings recorded by the learned trial court with respect to the point of surrender. 20. This Court further finds that issue Nos. (III), (IV) and (V) were taken up together by the learned trial court and in paragraph 7 of the judgment the learned trial court ultimately held that the suit was barred by limitation. Neither any submissions have been advanced in connection with the point of limitation nor there any material to show that the point of limitation was wrongly decided by the learned trial court. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has also considered the materials on record and recorded concurrent findings. The learned courts have also recorded that the suit was also barred by section 34 of Specific Relief Act as no prayer for possession was made. 21. The learned 1st appellate court gave concurrent findings based on appreciation of materials on record. The sheet anchor of the case of the plaintiffs was surrender of the property to the ex-landlord which they miserably failed to prove before both the courts. 2025:JHHC:15623 9 22. This Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved and accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 23. Pending I.A., if any, is closed 24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through “FAX/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-