IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 254 of 2019 Mahadeo Lohar aged about 87 years son of late Sita Ram Lohar resident of village & P.O. – Gumgi, P.S. – Tisri, District – Giridih … … Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff Versus 1. Sita Devi wife of late Hari Charan Lohar, 2. Radhe Vishwakarma son of late Hari Charan Lohar both resident of village & P.O. – Gumgi, P.S. – Tisri, District – Giridih 3. Arjun Vishwakarma son of late Hari Charan Lohar resident of Main Chowk Rajdhanwar, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanwar, District – Giridih 4. Mahendra Vishwakarma son of late Hari Charan Vishwakarma R/o – Vill- Ganwan, P.O. + P.S. – Ganwan, District – Giridih 5. Bijay Vishwakarma son of late Hari Charan Lohar resident of Govindpur Upper Bazar, village Pangdih, P.O. P.S. – Gobindpur, District – Dhanbad 6. Meena Devi daughter of late Harcharan Lohar wife of Rajesh Vishwakarma, resident of village Jagdishpur, Pihra, P.O. & P.S. – Gawan, District – Giridih at present Sector IX, Ramdi More, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District – Bokaro 7. Dashrath Lohar son of late Ram Kishun Lohar 8. Bhagwan Das son of late Balgobind Lohar 9. Raju son of late Balgobind Lohar 10. Mosomat Malti wife of Late Mahabir Lohar 11. Sanjay son of Late Mahabir Lohar 12. Ajay son of late Mahabir Lohar 13. Shankar son of late Mahabir Lohar 14. Shambhu so of late Mahabir Lohar all 7 to 14 resident of village & P.O. – Gumgi, P.S. – Tisri, District – Giridih … … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. V.P. Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Mehta, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 16/04.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2019 (decree signed on 19.05.2019) passed by learned District Judge II, Giridih dismissing Civil Appeal No.06 of 2016 and affirming the judgement dated 25.01.2016 (decree signed on 08.02.2016) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Giridih 2 in Title Suit No.144 of 2000. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiff is the appellant before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts but the hukumnama which was exhibited by the appellant-plaintiff has been disbelieved on the ground that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the execution of hukumnama in the year 1941 (Exhibit 7). The learned counsel submits that no documentary evidence was produced in connection with the age of the plaintiff and the defendants were also claiming title on the basis of hukumnama which was of the year 1933. The learned counsel has submitted that on account of such finding, the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference by framing substantial question of law. 4. Upon perusal of the records of this case, this Court finds that the specific case of the plaintiff was that he acquired the property through a hukumnama given by the then Manager, Wards Estate Ganwan, in the year 1941 and since then he has remained in peaceful possession of the suit property and has been cultivating crop. The Plaintiff and defendants are gotias and they were joint in title from 4th generation upward from the plaintiff. It was also the case of the plaintiff that Videshi Lohar was the khatiyani raiyat, who had two sons namely Chandu Lohar and Tilak Lohar and both of them got separated in mess and business after death of Videshi Lohar in the year 1925. Chandu Lohar died in 1935 leaving behind two sons Sitaram Lohar and Baijnath Lohar. Sitaram Lohar died in 1942 leaving behind the plaintiff and Baijnath Lohar died issueless in 1950. The plaintiff in the lifetime of his father had acquired the suit land. Tilak Lohar was also living separately from his full brother Chandu Lohar who had two wives, and from one wife, he had three sons namely Ramkishun Lohar, Balgobind Lohar and Harcharan Lohar and from another wife only one son namely Dawarika Lohar. It was the case of the plaintiff that after settlement of suit land, he paid regularly to the landlord and thereafter to the Government of Bihar after vesting of the estate and was getting rent receipts in his own name. 3 5. The cause of action arose on 25.02.2000 when the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. However, in the year 1978, the Circle Officer had reported possession of the plaintiff and the defendant in his report. It was also asserted that in jamabandi cancellation case no.62 of 1995-1996, the suit land was said to be in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. It was further case of the plaintiff that the defendants later on filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, where the defendants allegedly managed a compromise between the two parties while disposing of the appeal and the Additional Collector directed the lower revenue court to deal with the matter in accordance with law and the defendants managed an order for changing the name of the plaintiff by the name of his great grandfather Videshi Lohar. The suit was filed for declaration that the suit property was the self-owned property of the plaintiff and he had exclusive title over the same. 6. The defendants filed the written statement stating that the suit was barred by limitation, adverse possession, waiver and estoppel and acquiescence and that the suit was undervalued. The specific case of the defendants was that the plaintiff had incorrectly and falsely stated his age as 80 years in the affidavit filed in the plaint and that he was not more than 60 years. They further stated that the suit was barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The defendants denied that the suit land was the self-acquired property of the plaintiff in 1941. Rather, the ancestral land of both the parties was recorded in the name of Videshi Lohar in khatian who did not die in 1925 rather died in 1940 and his sons got separated much thereafter. Chandu Lohar died in 1944, Tilak Lohar in 1945, Sitaram Lohar in 1955 and Baijnath Lohar in 1950 and that the suit land was acquired by Videshi Lohar on 11.02.1933 from the landlord Manager Ganwan, Wards & Estate through hukumnama followed by delivery of possession and acceptance of rent and Videshi Lohar came in possession of the property. 7. It was the further case of the defendants that Videshi Lohar and his two sons came in joint possession over the suit land as well as other ancestral land each having equal share and after death of Chandu 4 Lohar and Tilak Lohar, their sons got separated and came in possession of the suit property. The name of Videshi Lohar was running in Register II of the Circle Office and the defendants were in possession of the property which came in their share. It was alleged that the plaintiff got the name of Videshi Lohar penned through Register II and when a dispute arose, a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C was registered and it ended in a compromise on 10.09.1996 and in that proceeding, it was decided that both the parties would get equal share in the suit land. The dispute later on arose before the revenue authority and the matter came up to the court of Additional Collector, Giridih in Misc. Appeal No.125 of 1995-1996 which was disposed of on compromise which was duly signed by both the parties. 8. The plaintiff had again filed a petition being Misc. Case No.19 of 1997-1998 alleging that the plaintiff was not being allowed to have half share of the suit property and to restore Misc. Appeal No.125 of 1995-1996 which was rejected by the Additional Collector, Giridih vide order dated 16.04.1998. The defendants were coming in possession over half area of the suit land peacefully, continuously and openly for more than 75 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff and it was stated by the defendants that they have also perfected their title by way of adverse possession. 9. The trial court framed the following issues and ultimately the issues were decided against the plaintiff: “(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form ? (iii) Whether the court fee paid is sufficient ? (iv) Whether the suit land was acquired by the plaintiff ? (v) Whether the suit land is self acquired property of the plaintiff ? (vi) Whether the defendant on the basis of being co-shares of the plaintiffs can claim their share over suit land ? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief ?” 10. The learned trial court considered the evidences of the plaintiff himself along with the other evidences on the basis of which a finding was recorded that the plaintiff was minor at the time of execution of Exhibit - 7 in the year 1941. The learned trial court rather held that the admission of the plaintiff witness and the plaintiff himself proved that 5 when the suit was filed, the plaintiff was 60 years old which in turn suggested that plaintiff was not even born in 1941 and the said hukumnama which was said to have been issued in favour of the plaintiff was allegedly issued in the year 1941. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court also recorded that the sada hukumnama (Exhibit 7) was without any evidence of return being filed by the ex-landlord coupled with doubtful entry in jamabandi Register II which created a serious doubt over the veracity of the hukumnama and the title through that. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and gave concurrent findings. The finding recorded by the learned appellate court in paragraph 11 is quoted as under: “11. The Id. counsel of the defendant vehemently controverted the age of the plaintiff and submitted that at the time of so called Hukumnama (Ext-7) the plaintiff was minor. In support of his submission he drew attention of the court towards the affidavit of the plaintiff filed with the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff mentioned his age 80 years. The defendant in para 5 of W.S stated that the plaintiff was about 60 years at the time of filing of the suit. The PW1 who is a member of family of both sides filed his examination-in-chief and claimed his age on 30.01.2003 as 90 years and in para 10 of cross-examination he himself admitted that plaintiff was at least 25 years younger to him. The PW2 also claimed his age 70 years and in para-10 of cross- examination he admitted that plaintiff was about 10 years younger to him. The plaintiff(PW6) himself stated in para-12 on 19.04.2003 that he was married 22 years ago at the age of 22 years and so from calculation he was 59 years old on 19.04.2003 and so the plaintiff was minor at the time of execution of Ext- 7. The Id. counsel referred section 58 of the Evidence act and relied upon JLJR- 2007 AC page no-81 and submitted that the settled law is that the admitted facts does not require to be proved. The aforesaid admission made by plaintiff's witness and plaintiff himself prove that when the suit was filed the plaintiff was 60 years old which in turn suggest that the plaintiff was not even born in 1941, when the said Hukumnama was said to have been issued. So, the suit land was not acquired by the plaintiff.” 6 11. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts disbelieving the claim of plaintiff on the basis of hukumnama of the year 1941 which also includes the appreciation of evidences of the plaintiff and his witnesses. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the courts while coming to the findings as recorded and there is no question of appreciating evidence on record and coming to a different finding. This Court finds that no substantial question of law much less any substantial question of law is involved in this case, accordingly this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/