1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 142 of 2019 1. Sita Ram Mahto aged 36 years S/o Late Mohan Prasad Mehta 2. Rajendra Prasad Mehta aged 52 years S/o Lalaman Mehta. Both R/O Village: Kurla, P.O. & P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh 3. Manju Bhandari aged 60 years, W/o Sri Ranvijay Bhandari, R/o Village: Parasi, P.O. & P.S.: Ichhak, District: Hazaribagh 4. Smt. Godawari Devi, aged 60 years, W/o Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav R/o Village: Kutumsukari, P.O. & P.S. Ichhak, District: Hazaribagh 5. Prabhat Kumar Gupta aged 59 years S/o Purendu Gupta R/o Village: Parasi, P.O. and P.S.: Ichhak, District: Hazaribagh 6. Manoj Mehta, aged 49 years S/o Late Bangali Prasad Mehta R/o Village: Bariath, P.O. and P.S.: Ichhak, District: Hazaribagh 7. Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav aged 69 years S/o Late Kashi Yadav R/o Village: Hadari, P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants 8. Smt. Jirwa Devi, aged 60 years wife of Late Mohan Prasad Mehta R/o Village: Kurla, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District: Hazaribagh 9. Sheo Shankar Prasad Mehta, aged 70 years S/o Sobran Mehta R/o Village: Chandwar, P.O. and P.S.: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh 10. Jamuna Prasad Swarnakar, aged 70 years S/o Mohan Sao R/o Village: Parasi, P.O. and P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh 11. Rukmani Devi, aged 72 years, W/o Late Bangali Prasad Mehta 12. Prem Mahto, aged 35 years, S/o Late Bangali Prasad Mehta Both R/o Village: Bariath, P.O. and P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh … … Proforma Defendants/Appellants/Appellants -Versus- 1. Guneshwar Das Vaidya, S/o Late Gulab Das, R/o Village: Parasi, P.O. and P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh 2. The State of Bihar, now Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Hazariabgh, P.O. and P.S.: Hazaribagh, District: Hazaribagh 3. Anchal Adhikari, Ichak Anchal, P.O. and P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh 4. Badri Mehta son of Late Khemlal Mahto, R/O Village: Kurla, P.O. and P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh 5. Kuldeep Prasad Swarnkar, S/o Dwarika Swarnkar, R/O Village: Parasi, P.O. and P.S.: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY 2 --- For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, Advocate --- 11/28.01.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The appellants were the defendants in the suit. 3. This second appeal has been filed against Judgment dated 11.02.2019 and decree singed on 23.02.2019 passed by District Judge- II, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) in Title Appeal No. 60 of 2012 whereby the title appeal of the defendants has been dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 04.07.2012 and decree sealed and signed on 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 152 of 1994 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed on contest. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession with respect to the Schedule ‘A’ property on the basis of Sada Hukumnama and the genuineness of the Hukumnama was under cloud inasmuch as in writ petition arising out of a proceeding under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act being C.W.J.C. No. 1958 of 1985 (R) the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, but the said case was never decided. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the defendants were seeking title over the property by virtue of registered deed executed by the descendants of the ex-landlord. 6. During the course of hearing, it transpires that the claim of the plaintiff was on the basis of Sada Hukumnama coupled with issuance of zamindari rent receipt and so far as the defendants are concerned though they had registered sale deed in their favour, but the rent receipts were never issued in their favour. 7. The learned counsel submits that the plaintiff was claiming only 16 decimals of land in Plot No.1588 in Village- Parsai which he claimed through Hukumnama and the defendants were claiming 1.48 3 acres (148 decimals) of land, out of 2.56 acres of land in Plot No. 1588. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, this Court finds that altogether six issues were framed by the learned trial court including the issue as to whether the plaintiff has subsisting title and possession over the suit land described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. The learned trial court took up Issue Nos. III, IV and V together and after considering the materials on record recorded its findings in Paragraph-28 which are as follows: “28. DW-8 is Satendra Narayan Singh is a formal witness coming to prove the correction slip in mutation case No. 218/97-98 dated 30.05.97 and 207/97-98 dated 30.9.97 as Ext. A and Ext. A/1 but matter of fact is that both the correction slip were declared forged and obtained by fraudulent activities of the defendants. So vide Misc. case no. 2/2000 (R) the SDO, Hazaribagh had cancelled the demand running in the name of defendants and accordingly the evidence of DW-8 is for redundant/cancelled document. From over all evidences produced on behalf of defendants, the defendant’s case is that they have purchased 147 decimals land from khata no. 231, plot no. 1565 of Mouza Parasi, out of 2.56 decimal land from the legal heirs and successor of recorded tenant i.e. Indra Jitendra Narayan Singh and they are in possession over the said purchased land. This fact is also admitted by the plaintiff as PW1 that the defendant no. 1 to 14 had purchased 147 decimal land of aforesaid plot no. 1588 and they are in possession over the same but not the suit land is within 147 decimal of land of the defendant. It is established principle of law that the man may tell lie but not the documents. It is further admitted position of the defendants and evidences that the State has not recognized the transaction of G.M. land of plot no. 1588 in the name of defendants and thereby no mutation is permitted in their name and even the rent receipt issued in their name were cancelled. In other side the State itself by Ext. 7/C, 7/D and Ext. 10 substantiated that Ext. 4 series have admitted the claim of plaintiff over the said 16 decimal land i.e. the suit land and thereby the State has opened Jamabandi in name of Guneshwar Das Vaidya plaintiff after due inquiry thereby the rent receipts is issued in name of the 4 plaintiff. It is further from the averments of Ext. 7/D and Ext. 10 the State has recognized in the year 1999 that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land since last 50 years under the strength of Hukumnama p.no. 1055/42 and is residing thereby after constructing his house. This way the plaintiff’s possession has substantiated with his title through Hukumnama. In the light of the aforesaid findings and evidences available on record, I find and hold that the plaintiff has subsisting title over the suit land and is in possession over the suit land since more than 50 years i.e. from the date of granting of Hukumnama.” 9. The learned first appellate court has also considered the materials on record and has given concurrent findings. The learned first appellate court has discussed the oral evidence of the defendants in Paragraph-23 of the appellate court judgment and has recorded that DW-1 in his examination in chief had stated that the defendants according to their sale deed are in possession of the land and have constructed their house and the learned first appellate court recorded that this statement shows that the defendants-appellants are not claiming the land of the plaintiff, rather they are only concerned with their own land which they purchased through a sale deed. 10. The learned first appellate court further recorded its findings in Paragraph- 32 to 34 and ultimately dismissed the appeal:- “32. It is important to mention herein that from Ext.7/C to 7/D read with Ext.10 it is evident that State has admitted the fact that the respondent/ defendant Guneshwar Das Vaidya got Hukumnama regarding the suit land on 07.11.42 and he is residing over the said land since last more than 50 years, so considering him landless person his rent assessment application may be accepted. Thereafter, ultimately the rent assessment was started in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 33. Above-mentioned documentary evidence shows that rent receipts were being issued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the suit land. On the other hand, with respect to the documents of the appellants/defendants the respondent / plaintiff has stated that Ext.A series and Ext.C series are the documents which 5 have been cancelled by the Government as those documents were obtained by the appellants/ defendants by committing fraud. Ext.7, 7/A to 7/O are the certified copies of mutation proceeding in the name of different appellants/ defendants for mutation of land purchased by them regarding Khata No.231, Plot No.1588 of Village Parasi and the same were rejected by Anchal Adhikari, Ichak in the year 1993. Ext.A series and C series are the cancelled documents as such the reliability of these documents cannot be accepted, hence the only documentary evidence remaining in favour of the appellants/defendants are the certified copy of sale deed i.e. Ext.D series. Several DWs in their evidences have stated that they have purchased certain lands from Indra Jitendra Narayan Singh from Khata No.231, Plot No.1588 in total area of 2.57 acres of land of Mouja Parasi and from the date of their purchase they are in peaceful possession over the said land and have constructed their house. This fact has been admitted by the respondent/plaintiff as P.W.1 that appellants/defendants have purchased 1.47 acres land from Khata No.231, Plot No.1588 in Mouja Parasi and they are in possession over the same but not in the suit land. It is evident from the materials available on the record that the state has not recognized the transaction of G.M. land of plot No.1588 in the name of the appellants/defendants and thereby no mutation was permitted in their name and even the rent receipt issued in their name were cancelled. On the other hand, state itself admitted the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs over 16 decimals land which is evident by Ext.7/C, 7/C and Ext.10 and Ext.4 series. After due inquiry Zamabandi was opened in the name of defendant/plaintiff Guneshwar Das Vaidya and rent receipt have been issued in his name. 34. With respect to possession of the respondents/plaintiffs, some of the appellants / defendants witnesses have stated regarding construction of house and clinic. After over all scrutiny of oral evidence of appellants/defendants it cannot be outrightly rejected that the respondent/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land rather it can be said that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, the respondent/ plaintiff witnesses have stated regarding possession of the respondent/ plaintiff over the suit land. The documentary evidence i.e. Ext.7/C, 7/D, 6 Ext.10 and Ext.4 series and corroborates the factum of possession over the suit land by the respondents/plaintiffs. As far as title is concerned, there is Hukumnama (Ext.11) and zamindari rent receipts (Ext 1, Ext/a and Ext/b) in the name of the respondent/plaintiff and the state recognized that he is in possession of the suit land since last 50 years on the basis of the said document and thereafter government rent receipts were also issued in his name. In the case of Mt Ugni and Anr vs Chowa Mahto and Others reported in 1968(16) BLJR 93 Court Hon'ble Patna High has held that the unregistered hukumnama, though inadmissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Oral evidence with respect to the terms of the lease is not admissible, but independent of hukumnama the zamindari rent receipts (Ext 1, Ext/a and Ext/b) themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and the nature of right of the respondent/plaintiff. As such independent of hukumnama, the terms of settlement is inferable from other piece of evidence. On the basis of above finding, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in continuous possession and has got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land.” 11. The Hon’ble Full Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Mt. Ugni and another -vs- Chowa Mahto and Others reported in 1967 SCC OnLine Pat 62: AIR 1968 Pat 302 (FB) has considered the nature and character of possession through unregistered hukumnama at Paragraph-17 and held that though inadmissible, it could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Paragraph 17 is quoted as under:- “17. The unregistered hukumnama, though inadmissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Oral evidence of the terms of the lease will not be admissible; but, independent of the hukumnama, the rent receipts themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and the nature of the right of the lessee. Hence, independent of the hukumnama, the terms of the raiyati settlement were inferable from other pieces of evidence, which were rightly relied on by 7 the lower appellate court. There is no error of law that would justify our interference in second appeal.” 12. The learned first appellate court has rightly referred to the aforesaid judgement of Mt. Ugni (supra). 13. This Court finds that both the courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have given concurrent findings with regard to the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs. This Court is of the view that the order of remand passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1958 of 1985 (R) dated 21.03.1991 with respect to fresh consideration under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment proceeding has no bearing in the present case. 14. This Court finds that the evidences produced before the trial court has been properly scrutinized by both the courts and concurrent findings have been recorded. No perversity has been pointed out in the matter of appreciation of evidence. Further, this Court is of the view that no question of law much less any substantial question law is involved in the present second appeal and consequently, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 16. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/Email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-