2025:JHHC:33081 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 20 of 2021 Paro Devi, aged about 46 years, wife of Ledo Yadav @ Makhan Yadav, resident of Barmasia, P.O. – Dhanbad, P.S.- Dhansar, District- Dhanbad. … … Defendant/Respondent/Appellant Versus Surendra Narayan Singh, son of Late Hem Narayan Singh, resident of Mohalla Barmasia, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.- Dhansar, District- Dhanbad; Represented through his Attorney Holder, Sri Yamuna Prasad Singh, son of Late Damodar Singh, resident of Barmasia, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.- Dhansar, District- Dhanbad. … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mrs. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent : --- 15/04.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.07.2020 (decree signed on 16.07.2020) passed by learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2016 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and set-aside the judgment dated 01.02.2016 (decree signed on 06.02.2016) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 39 of 2004. The trial court had dismissed the suit. The 1st appellate court allowed the appeal and consequently, the defendant is the appellant before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defendant was admittedly in possession since 1975 with respect to 8 Kathas of land and consequently, the defendant had perfected the title by adverse possession. She further submitted that though the defendant purchased 2.25 Kathas of land from the plaintiff namely, Surendra Narayan Singh, Madan Mahto and Mohan Mahto by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 26.09.1990, but the defendant was in possession since 1975. She submits that the learned courts did not properly consider the fact that the defendant was in possession of the suit property since 1975. 2025:JHHC:33081 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of 4 Kathas of land under Plot No. 48, 49 and 50 under Khata No. 91 of Village Dhansar, District Dhanbad and also for a decree for confirmation of his possession over the suit property. It was also prayed by the plaintiff that if found dispossessed from the suit property, the possession be restored to the plaintiff. 5. The case of the plaintiff was that in Mouza No. 47, P.S. Dhansar, Khata No. 91, out of Plot No. 48 area 1.15 acre, Plot No. 49 area 16 decimal and plot no. 50 area 4 decimal, the suit property to the extent of 4 Kathas was recorded in the name of Bhadru Mahto, S/o Gajadhar Mahto which was in Plot Nos. 48, 49 and 50. The land was acquired by Akli Kumharin through Title Suit No. 373 of 1961 and she remained in possession of the same and left behind her only son namely, Laldhari Kumhar. Laldhari Kumhar came in possession and after taking due permission from the Deputy Commissioner, executed sale-deed in connection with plot nos. 48, 49 and 50 vide registered sale-deed no. 5099 dated 26.04.1989 for an area of 68 decimal with boundaries mentioned therein to Madan Mahto, Surendra Narayan Singh and Mohan Mahto, who jointly sold 2.25 Kathas to the defendant in plot no. 48 and with respect to the remaining, they divided amongst themselves and remained in possession. 6. It was his further case that Madan Mahto and Mohan Mahto left their claim in favour of Surendra Narayan Singh. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant slowly encroached upon 4 Kathas of land and constructed a PCC road and in spite of objection on 28.04.2004, the defendant refused to vacate the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and intertest in connection with schedule B property. 7. The defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit was barred by limitation and also stated that the plaintiff Surendra Narayan Singh, Madan Mahto and Mohan Mahto had bought the property in the year 1989 in Plot Nos. 48, 49 and 50, who then sold 2.25 Kathas to 2025:JHHC:33081 3 the defendant. The defendant asserted that she has been in possession of the property since 1975 and was in possession to the extent of 8 Kathas and has been utilizing the land for the purpose of keeping cattle, cows and Buffalos and was engaged in the business of selling milk. 8. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2. Is there any cause of action for present suit? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree declaring plaintiff to be rightful owner of the suit land mentioned in Schedule-B? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree for confirmation of possession over schedule-B land? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant for the suit land? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled for any further relief or reliefs? 9. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences. The learned trial court was of the view that the plaintiff was not able to prove that Surendra Narayan Singh got the property of Mohan Mahto and Madan Mahto also. The Court observed that the suit was filed through power of attorney and Surendra Narayan Singh was not examined and that other co-owners of the property namely, Mohan Mahto and Madan Mahto were not made party in the proceedings. The learned trial court ultimately dismissed the suit and observed that the plaintiff has not been able to prove right, title, interest and possession with respect to Schedule -B property and even the boundaries were not properly mentioned. 10. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the learned court framed the point for determination as under: “Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree declaring his right, title, interest over the suit property and is he entitled for restoration of possession of the suit property?” 11. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the oral and documentary evidences on record and ultimately held that it was an 2025:JHHC:33081 4 admitted case of both the parties that Surendra Narayan Singh, Mohan Mahto and Madan Mahto had purchased 0.68 acres of land under Khata No. 91, Plot No. 48, 49 & 50 from Laldhari Kumhar through registered sale deed dated 26.04.1989 and they had sold only 2.25 kathas under plot no. 48 Khata No. 91 to the defendant by registered sale-deed which was dated 26.09.1990 (exhibit-1). The learned court also recorded that the defendant never objected with respect to purchaser of the property. The learned court held that Laldhari Kumhar had sold 0.68 acres of land under Plot No. 48, 49 & 50 new plot nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Khata No. 91 on consideration amount of Rs. 8500/- to Surendra Narayan Singh, Mohan Mahto and Madan Mahto. The court also recorded that so far as power of attorney is concerned, Surendra Narayan Singh had executed power of attorney in favour of Yamuna Prasad Singh to represent him in the court and also to execute sale-deed for the land under 17 sale-deeds including sale- deed no. 5099 dated 26.04.1989. 12. In view of the admitted position that the defendant had purchased only 2.25 Kathas of land from Surendra Narayan Singh, Mohan Mahto and Madan Mahto out of 0.68 acres of land, the learned 1st appellate court ultimately declared that the plaintiff was the original owner of the land mentioned in the schedule-B property. The learned court also recorded that the defendant had no title in connection with property more than 2.25 Kathas. The right, title and intertest of the defendant with respect to 2.25 Kathas has not been disturbed. It was further noted by the learned court that the defendant in her deposition had stated that consideration amount for 4 Kathas was paid, but there was a sale of only 2.25 Kathas and it was not in dispute that the registered sale-deed in favour of the defendant was only for 2.25 kathas and not for 4 Kathas. Merely because the defendant stated that she was in possession since 1975, the same by itself would not entitle the defendant for a decree of adverse possession. 13. This Court finds that no plea of adverse possession as such was taken by the defendant and no issue with regard to adverse possession 2025:JHHC:33081 5 was framed by the learned trial court nor any such point of determination was framed by the learned 1st appellate court. 14. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds no substantial question of law involved in this case. This 2nd appeal is accordingly dismissed. 15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, dismissed as not pressed. 16. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through ‘FAX/email’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order: 04th November 2025 Date of uploading:05.01.2026 Pankaj