2025:JHHC:32634 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 30 of 2020 1. Chandan Kumar Pramanik, aged about 49 years, son of Late Prafulla Kumar Pramanik 2. Bharati Pramanik, aged about 52 years 3. Mukti Pramanik, aged about 37 years Nos. 2 and 3, Both daughters of Late Prafulla Kumar Pramanik, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, All residents of Village Sohandih (Sini), P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District Seraikella Kharsawan – 832 401 … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Shivjee Goswami, son of Late Ramanand Goswami, resident of Village- Sohandih (Sini), P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District Seraikella Kharsawan. 2. Arti Das, wife of Lakhikant Das, Daughter of Late Prafulla Kumar Pramanik, resident of 30/2, Shree Mohan Lane, P.O. and P.S. Sahanagar, Kolkata – 700 026, West Bengal 3. Minati Lai, wife of Omkar Nath Lai, daughter of Late Prafulla Kumar Pramanik, resident of Upper Hill View, P.O. and P.S. Asansol, District Asansol, West Bengal, PIN- 713307 4. Depty Devnath, wife of Sushil Devnath, daughter of Late Prafulla Kumar Pramanik, resident of Uttar Ghosh Para, P.S. Chakdata, P.O. Chakdata, District Nadia, West Bengal - 712147 … … Defendants/ Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Siddharth Jyoti Roy, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate --- 15/30.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2019 (decree signed on 23.08.2019) passed in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2012 by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Seraikella whereby the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2012 (decree signed on 13.08.2012) passed in Title Suit No. 9 of 2010 by learned Civil Judge, Seraikella. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts, but the learned courts have failed to consider that the encroachment was 2025:JHHC:32634 2 of recent origin and therefore, the suit was wrongly held to be barred by limitation. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and upon going through the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title, interest and for recovery of possession of the suit land. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that their ancestor purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 21.03.1958. The suit property was purchased by Prafulla Kumar Pramanik, father of plaintiff nos. 1, 3 and 4 and proforma defendants and husband of plaintiff no. 2. The plaintiff no. 2 died during the pendency of the suit. 5. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was recorded in the name of Prafulla Kumar Pramanik in the last survey settlement operation published in the year 1961 under Plot No. 171, Khata No. 21. It was their further case that the father of the principal defendant Late Rama Nand Goswami had purchased the land situated in adjacent south of the land of the plaintiffs and it was recorded as plot no. 172 in the last survey settlement operation. Rama Nand Goswami had constructed a residential house over the said land. Further, during the lifetime of Prafulla Kumar Pramanik and Rama Nand Goswami, some dispute cropped up between them and the land was measured by Government Amin and the dispute was amicably settled. It was their further case that after death of Prafulla Kumar Pramanik, the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession of the land belonging to Prafulla Kumar Pramanik (plot no. 171). Since the plaintiff no. 1 was the government employee, the defendant no. 1 took advantage of absence of plaintiffs and started encroachment over the suit lands by making certain construction and a proceeding was also initiated by the local police under section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure but ultimately the proceeding was dropped. According to the plaintiffs, the principal defendant had encroached portion of plot no. 171 of Khata No. 21 measuring 2 decimals and ultimately the suit was filed. 2025:JHHC:32634 3 6. The principal defendant no. 1 filed his written statement alleging that the suit was barred by limitation and there was no cause of action. However, in his written statement he admitted that Prafulla Kumar Pramanik was the owner of R.S. Plot No. 171, Khata No. 21 and that his father was the owner of R.S. Plot No. 172 which was adjacent south to the land of the plaintiffs. It was his further case that the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendant no. 1 were peacefully living together as neighbours and there was no dispute between them. 7. It was further stated that topographical shape of the land of the plot no. 171 and plot no. 172 were otherwise crack jack and hence, both of them exchanged two corners of land vice versa. An amin was engaged who measured the land and adjusted the area to make the boundary of the land between the plots in a straight line by removing the old shape. Thereafter, a boundary wall was erected between their respective land and no dispute ever arose between them after the said amicable settlement. It was denied that the defendant no.1 at any occasion had encroached upon any portion of the land of plaintiffs in this regard and it was submitted that there was no scope or reason for making any encroachment as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was stated that there is no dispute that the defendant no.1 has constructed the house in his area of Plot no. 172. 8. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences in support of their case after framing of issues which are quoted as under: “(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and for the relief claimed? (2) Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit? (3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (4) Whether the suit is grossly undervalued? (5) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act? (6) Whether the plaintiffs have valid right, title, interest over the suit land described in Schedule of the plaint? 2025:JHHC:32634 4 (7) Whether the defendant no. 1 has encroached upon the suit land raising certain constructions thereon? (8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief? If yes, to what extent?” 9. The learned trial court took up issue nos. 6 and 7 and after considering the oral and documentary evidences of the parties, recorded that the predecessor in interest of both the parties had amicably settled their interest and had erected a wall between the two plots and settled all the disputes between them. It was also recorded that witness of the plaintiffs deposed that the construction was sought to be made by the defendant within their area of the boundary wall and it has also come on record that the boundary wall was constructed long back. The learned court ultimately held that the plaintiffs and their witnesses admitted that the parties are within the limit of their demarcation line as made by their predecessor-in-interest and ultimately held that there was no encroachment by the defendant no. 1 over the area of the plaintiffs. While considering the point of limitation while deciding issue no. (3), the learned court held that the suit was barred by limitation and recorded the finding as under: “23. Issue No.3:-The defendant has taken a plea that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaint of the plaintiff disclose cause of action from last week of December 2008 with no specific date. As stated above, nothing has come to suggest the manner of encroachment either in the plaint or evidence of the plaintiff. But, the deposition of the very plaintiff no.1 as P.W.3 at para 35 and 36 is relevant on this issue. At para 36, the very plaintiff no. 1 has deposed that the suit land has been encroached by the father of defendant no. 1 namely Ramanand Goswami. From such statement of the plaintiff no 1, it comes out that the plaintiffs are putting up their claim and agitating the demarcation so made by his father and father of def. no.1. It has also come from the mouth of this very witness i.e. the plaintiff that such demarcation was made in the year 1960 by construction of a boundary wall between their respective lands. The present suit has been filed on 10.5.10 i.e. after 50 years. The present suit is of the nature of recovery of possession of land by removing encroachment. The period of limitation for such suit is of 12 years and the present suit has been filed after the period of 2025:JHHC:32634 5 around 50 years and hence the present suit is hopelessly barred by imitation. Accordingly, this issue is decided as against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.” 10. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination: “I. Whether the defendant no. 1/ respondent no. 1 has encroached over the suit land and appellants plaintiffs have valid right, title and interest over the suit land as described in the plaint of the suit? II. Whether the suit of the plaintiff appellant was barred by law of limitation? III. Whether the appellants plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of the suit land from the possession of respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 as described in the plaint of the suit?” 11. The learned 1st appellate court decided all the points for determination against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. 12. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the plaintiffs and their witnesses have also admitted in their respective evidences that the parties to the suit are within their limits of demarcation line as made by their predecessor-in-interest and the learned court held that there was no encroachment made by defendant no. 1. The point of limitation was also decided under Point of determination No. II vide paragraph 13 of the appellate court’s judgment and it was held that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. 13. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts after considering all the materials on record. Both the learned courts have held that the defendant no. 1 was acting within the boundary wall erected between the plots of the respective parties by their predecessor in interest way back in the year 1960 and the parties were in peaceful possession of the same. The plea of encroachment was rejected. 14. This Court finds no perversity with respect to the appreciation of the materials on record as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. This Court finds that both the learned 2025:JHHC:32634 6 courts have given concurrent findings while dismissing the suit and accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 15. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 17. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through ‘FAX/email’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order: 30th October 2025 Pankaj Date of uploading:05.01.2026