IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 360 of 2018 1. Prabhu Marandi, aged about 69 years 2. Nakul Marandi, aged about 61 years 3. Ruplal Marandi, aged about 57 years All sons of Late Pandu Manjhi all resident of Tilabani, P.O. & P.S.- Govindpur, District- Dhanbad … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Sanatan Soren 2. Lukhi Kant Soren, 3. Sulochana Majhian W/o Late Mahatam Soren, 4. Kajali Kumari, D/o Late Mahatam Soren 5. Mukesh Soren S/o Late Mahatam Soren 6. Bikash Soren S/o Late Mahatam Soren Respondent No.4 to 6 are minor daughter and sons represented by natural guardian mother Sulochana Mejhain) All of resident of Tilabani, P.O.- Bardohi, P.S.- Govindpur, District – Dhanbad … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 7. The Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad … Proforma Defendant/Proforma Respondent/Proforma Respondent --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents : None --- 14/25.02.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2018 (Decree sealed and signed on 12.06.2018) passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge – XI, Civil Court, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.28 of 2005, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2004 (Decree sealed and signed on 06.01.2005) passed by the learned Sub- Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.128 of 1996 whereby the suit was dismissed on contest. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, but a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case in as 2 much as the learned court has relied upon Exhibit – C, which was judgement passed in Title Suit No.309 of 1949 to hold that Mugli Manjhain died leaving behind a daughter namely Karila Manjhain although there was no foundational pleading in the written statement of the defendants referring to the Title Suit No.309 of 1949. The learned counsel has submitted that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that Karila Manjhain was wife of Chotu Manjhi, who was working as servant under their master namely Kalyan Manjhi and therefore, there is no question of any right, title, interest with respect to the property involved in the case in favour of Karila Manjhain and Karila Manjhain was not the daughter of Debu Murmu. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the suit was filed for a decree in favour of the original plaintiff against the defendants, seeking declaration of raiyati right of the original plaintiff in the suit property and for a declaration that neither Karila Manjhain, nor Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have got any interest in the schedule property. The suit was filed by Kalyan Manjhi, and upon his death, the appeal was filed by Sarodi Menjhian, daughter of Kalyan Manjhi. The Deputy Collector, Dhanbad was made proforma party in the case. Sarodi Menjhian died during pendency of the title appeal and she was substituted in the memo of appeal by the present appellants who ultimately pursued the appeal before the first appellate court. During the pendency of the title appeal, defendant No.3 had also died and was substituted by Respondent No.3(a) to 3(c). 5. As per the case of the original plaintiff, one Kalyan Murmu, son of Ramu Murmu and Mugli Manjhain, wife of Debu Murmu jointly owned and possessed the property in Khata No.17 which consisted of several plots. Ramu Murmu and Debu Murmu were full brothers and the property was recorded in their name, but at the time of preparation of record of right way back in 1923-1924, Debu Murmu expired without any issue and his share vested in his wife Mugli Manjhain and her name was recorded jointly with Kalyan Manjhi. 6. Further case of the plaintiffs was that Kalyan Manjhi had kept one person namely, Chotu Manjhi for helping him in agricultural 3 work, who married Karila Manjhain and both stayed in the house of Kalyan Manjhi as servants. 7. Further case of the plaintiffs was that Sarodi Manjhain, who was the plaintiff, was the sole daughter of Kalyan Manjhi and inherited the entire property in Khata No.17 as Kalyan Manjhi died in the year 1940. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Karila Manjhain wrongly claimed herself to be the daughter of Debu Murmu and Mugli Manjhain and on that basis, she got her name entered in the revisional survey record and as soon as the plaintiffs came to know about it, steps were taken and the suit was filed. 8. The case of the Defendants No.1 to 3 was that they admitted that the suit property belonged to two brothers Debu Murmu and Ramu Manjhi and upon death of Debu Murmu, he left behind his wife Mugli Manjhain and Ramu Manjhi died leaving behind his son Kalyan Manjhi. It was also admitted that after death of Debu Murmu and Ramu Manjhi, Mugli Manjhain, wife of Debu Murmu, and Kalyan Manjhi, son of Ramu Manjhi came in possession of the disputed land. Kalyan Manjhi died in 1940 leaving behind her only daughter Sarodi Manjhain and Mugli Manjhain wife of Debu Murmu died in 1950. 9. The specific case of the defendants was that Karila Manjhain was the daughter of Mugli Manjhain and therefore the plea of the plaintiffs that Mugli Manjhain had no issue and the entire property devolved upon Kalyan Manjhi son of Ramu Murmu was disputed. 10. This Court finds that the learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: “1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the suit is barred under the C.N.T. Act? 5. Whether the title vested upon the plaintiff? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of the raiyati right, title & interest over the suit property? 7. To what relief or reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?” 4 11. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and ultimately recorded that in Exhibit - C which was judgment in Title Suit No.309 of 1949 and Exhibit - E the decree of the said title suit Karila Manjhain was shown to be the daughter of Mugli Manjhain and also referred to Exhibit- D the certified copy of new khatian prepared by Revisional survey authority in the name of Sarodi Manjhain and also Karila Manjhain. 12. The learned trial court after considering the materials on record held that Karila Manjhain was the daughter of Mugli Manjhain and the property stood recorded jointly in the name of Sarodi Manjhain and Karila Manjhain. The learned trial court also recorded that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to rebut these aspects of the matter. 13. The learned court ultimately referred to Section 258 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and observed that the court had no jurisdiction to correct or modify the record of rights and the plaintiffs were required to be examined as witness in order to establish his case because persons personally knowing the facts and circumstances must give evidence on his own behalf so that he may be subjected to cross- examination. The learned trial court ultimately held that the suit was barred by limitation and also the suit was barred under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and dismissed the suit. 14. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and recorded that it was an admitted fact that Ramu Murmu and Debu Murmu are real brothers. It is also an admitted fact that Ramu Murmu died leaving behind only son Kalyan Murmu and Debu Manjhi died leaving behind his wife Mugli Manjhain and framed the point for determination as under: “Determination Point No. I & II: - I. Whether the original plaintiff-appellant has proved her title and possession over the suit land by producing sufficient evidence, in support of her contention, if so, whether she was entitled to be declared as owner of the suit land? 5 II. Whether Kareli Manjhian was daughter of Debu Murmu and in this regard, she was entitled to inherit the property which was left by her father Debu? III. Whether there is any defect in the judgment and decree of the trial court?” 15. The learned appellate court considered the Point of Determination Nos. I & II together and recorded that the original plaintiff (now deceased) raised a plea that Mugli Majhain wife of Debu Murmu died without issue in the year 1930 and her share, which was obtained through her husband, devolved upon Kalyan Murmu, son of Ramu Murmu and nephew of Debu Murmu. Debu Murmu (the husband of Mugli Manjhain) and Ramu Murmu were brothers. The learned court considered the materials on record including the Exhibit – C, which was the certified copy of the judgement passed in Title Suit No.309 of 1949. It has been recorded that from Exhibit – C, it appeared that Mugli Manjhain died leaving behind a daughter namely Karila Manjhain. The learned court ultimately recorded a finding that the learned trial court rightly held that Karila Manjhain was raiyat of the disputed land with respect to half share and that Ext. D, the record of rights also specifically showed that Karela Manjhian had 1/2 share holder in the suit land and her status was raiyat. The finding is recorded as under: “Ext. D is continuous Khatian prepared by State of Bihar related to mouja Tilabani P.S Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad of which Thana no. 206 and the same was related to Khatian no. 326 Khata no. 15 consisting several plots after perusing of the same it appears that the raiyats of land find mentioned Sarodi Manjhian d/o Kalyan Murmu 1/2 share and Karela Manjhian d/o Debu Murmu 1/2 share. Thus, the alleged document reflects that father of Karela Majhian was Debu Murmu. Hence, pleading and argument of the plaintiff-appellant that Karila Majhian was not daughter of Debu Murmu is not acceptable. I find and hold that Karila Majhian was d/o Debu Murmu and in the light of discussions made above I find and hold that after death of her father named, Debu Murmu she succeeded the property with extent to 1/2 share in the suit land left by her father as Debu Murmu has no male issue. Further, I find that Debu Murmu died leaving behind her daughter Karela Majhian in intestate condition. Further, the case record as well as evidence available on the record reflects that after death of Debu Murmu her daughter Karela Majhinan had come in physical possession over 1/2 share of the disputed land and after her 6 death her son, Nando Manjhi came in physical possession and thereafter the defendant no. 1 to 3 who are legal heris of Karela Majhian came in physical possession over the land which was left by Karela Majhian with respect to her share. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the appellant raised a plea that Chhoto Manjhi husband of Karela Manjhian was not Ghar- Jamai of Debu Murmu however after perusing of the plaint it appears that the plaintiff did not plead about this fact in her pleading. It is trite law that a party to suit cannot travel beyond pleading so also court cannot record any finding on issues which are not part of pleadings. Here, Ext. D specific shows that Karela Manjhian had 1/2 share holder in the suit land and her status was raiyat. Thus ld. Court below rightly held that the Karela Majhian was raiyats of the disputed lands with respect to 1/2 shares.” 16. While deciding the Point of Determination No. III, the learned court recorded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that Chotu Manjhi was only kept by Kalyan Manjhi as a caretaker and was helping in his agricultural work. Admittedly, Chotu Manjhi was the husband of Karila Manjhain and was living on the property. The learned court held that Karila Manjhain had acquired right, title and interest and possession over the property concerning her father's share in the disputed land. The learned trial court rightly concluded that Karila Manjhain held raiyati rights with respect to her father's share and dismissed the appeal. Finding with regard to Point of Determination No. III is as under: “16. Determination of point -III: III. Whether there is any defect in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court? The case record evinced that the plaintiff who is appellant here took a plea that Karela Majhian was not daughter of Debu Murmu and after death of Mangli Manjhian who died leaving behind no issue, her interest devolved in Kalyan Murmu who was son of Ram Murmu because Kalyan Murmu was nephu of Debu Murmu. Further, the plaintiff has taken a plea that Chhoto Manjhi who was husband of Karela Manjhi was permitted gratuitously in the capacity as a caretaker and servant. However, the plaintiff who is appellant here did not prove the above aforesaid cited plea. Here it is clear that Karela Majhian had acquired right, title and interest in the property with respect to her fathers' share in the disputed land and the Ld. Court below had rightly hold the raiyat of Karele Majhian with respect to his father's shares in the disputed land and in this situation the plaintiff- appellant had not entitled the reliefs which had demanded in the plaint. I further find that the plaintiff had failed to prove the fact that Chhoto Manjhi was only kept by Kalyan Manjhi as a caretaker and helping for his agricultural work. 7 17. In view of the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the Ld. Court below have committed no error. Therefore, I arrived at the conclusion that the Ld. Court below after appreciating entire evidence available on the record passed a judgment and rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff after proper appreciating the evidence available on the record and in my mind, the Ld. Court below rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiff on merit.” 17. This Court finds that the learned courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have given concurrent findings that Karila Manjhain was the daughter of Mugli Manjhain and was the raiyat of the property to the extent of half share; the judgement and decree of Title Suit No.309 of 1949 was produced in support of such a plea and that was not the only material on record to come to such a finding. Even in the record of rights it was shown as Sarodi Manjhian daughter of Kalyan Murmu 1/2 share and Karela Manjhian daughter of Debu Murmu 1/2 share. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the judgement and decree of Title Suit No.309 of 1949 was rightly taken into consideration along with other materials on record while returning the aforesaid findings. There is no scope for this Court to disturb the findings of facts when the same is arrived after due scrutiny of the materials. This Court is of the view that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 20. Let a copy this judgement be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/