2025:JHHC:31685 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 518 of 2017 1. Chandradeo Prasad Dangi, son of late Jeolal Mahto resident of village Changer, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District – Chatra 2. Rajendra Dangi 3. Satendra Dangi 4. Mahendra Dangi 5. Upendra Dangi No.2 to 5 sons of Lakhiya Devi and Chhathu Mahto residents of village Tikar Tola – Kasiyadih, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District – Chatra 6. Kiran Devi daughter of late Basanti devi and father Kedar Dangi and wife of Arun Singh residents of village Simari P.O. Padma, P.S. Manatu, District – Medninagar (Palamau) 7. Chanchal Devi daughter of late Basanti Devi and wife of Dinesh Singh resident of village Manjhgawan P.O. Pathak pagar, P.O. and P.S. Tarhasi, District – Medninagar (Palamau) 8. Sunita Kumari daughter of late Basanti Devi (Minor) 9. Rinku Kumari daughter of late Basanti Devi (Minor 10. Manoj Kumar D/o late Basanti Devi (Minor) 11. Rakesh Kumar D/o later Basanti Devi (Minor) No.8 to 11 residents of village Deksa, P.O. Barisakhi, P.S. Gidhour, District – Chatra Appellant no.8 to 11 are being represented by Chanchal Devi as legal guardian 12. Muniya Devi daughter of Chhatu Mahto 13. Runa Kumar (Minor) Represented through his father Chhathu Mahto as a legal guardian 14. Chhathu Mahto, son of late Ramlal Mahto No.12 to 14 residents of Tikar, Tola Kasiyadih, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District - Chatra 15. Diliya Devi wife of Bishundhari Mahto 16. Arawati Devi, wife of Karamdeo Mahto (dead and deleted vide order dated 12.07.2024) 17. Mahesh Kumar Dangi son of late Karamdeo Mahto 18. Renu Kumari daughter of late Karamdeo Mahto Represented through her mother Arawati Devi 19. Jagotari Devi wife of late laldhari Mahto 20. Ajit Kumar Dangi son of late Laldhari Mahto 21. Ranjana Kumari, daughter of late Laldhari Mahto 22. Gudi Kumari, daughter of late Laldhari Mahto 2025:JHHC:31685 2 Represented through her mother Jagotari Devi 23. Kouleshwar Dangi, son of late Mangar Mahto 24. Baleshwar Dangi son of late Mangar Mahto Appellant no.15 to 24 R/o village – Changer, P.S. & district Chatra, P.O. Tikar 25. Degan Dangi son of late Mangar Mahto, Resident of village Changer, P.O. Tikar, P.S. Chatra, District - Chatra 26. Bhuneshwari Devi daughter of late Mangar Mahto and wife of Kamalnath Mahto resident of village Ramtunda, P.O. Unta, P.S. Chatra, district – Chatra 27. Sheodhari Mahto (Dead vide order dated 24.06.2023) i. Bhuneshwar Mahto (Dead and substituted vide order dated: 12.07.2024) (a) Manoj Dangi, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Mahto (b) Saroj Dangi, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Mahto (c) Chanchala Devi, D/o Late Bhuneshwar Mahto (d) Keshri Devi, D/o Late Bhuneshwar Mahto ii. Tapeshwar Dangi Both sons of late Sheodhari Mahto iii. Yashoda Devi iv. Keshiya Devi v. Urmila Devi vi. Kaili Devi No.(iii) to (vi) are daughter of late Sheodhari Mahto vii. Most. Tilki wife of late Deonandan Mahto and daughter in law of Sheodhari Mahto viii. Pankaj Dangi, son of late Deonandan Mahto and grandson of late Sheodhari Mahto All resident of village Changer, P.O. Tikar, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra 28. Bhikhari Dangi son of late Komal Mahto 29. Sarju Dangi son of late Komal Mahto No.27 to 29 residents of village Changer, P.O. Tikar, P.S. Chatra, district - Chatra 30. Somati Devi daughter of late Komal Mahto wife of Sarju Dangi resident of village Jangi, P.O. Unta, P.S. and district – Chatra 31. Gopal Prasad Dangi, son of late Brahmdeo Mahto 32. Jitendra Prasad Dangi son of Brahmdeo Mahto 33. Nagina Prasad son of Brahmdeo Mahto 34. Geeta Devi daughter of Brahmdeo Mahto 35. Kavita Kumari daughter of Brahmdeo Mahto (minor) 36. Rajanti Kumari daughter of Brahmdeo Mahto (minor) 2025:JHHC:31685 3 Daughter of Suchi Dangi Kavita Kumari and Rajanti Kumari are minor and represented through their father Brahmdeo Mahto son of late Dhanukdhari Mahto as a legal guardian 37. Bhukhan Mahto son of Bifai Mahto No.31 to 37 residents of village Changer, P.O. Tikar, P.S. Chatra, district - Chatra … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Ajay Paswan son of late Sheo Shankar Ram 2. Jainath Paswan son of late Sheo Shankar Ram No.1 to 2 residents of village Jori, P.O. Jori, P.S. Bashishtnagar (Jori), district - Chatra 3. Sunaina Devi daughter of late Sheo Shankar Ram and wife of Raghunandan Paswan resident of village Tikar, P.O., P.S. and district – Chatra 4. Punam Devi daughter of late Sheo Shankar Ram and wife of Radheshyam Paswan resident of village Jogiyara, P.O. Jogiyara, P.S. Pratappur, district – Chatra 5. Rekha Devi daughter of late Sheo Shankar Ram and wife of Uma Paswan resident of village Lamta, P.O. Lamta, P.S. Simariya, district – Chatra 6. Kanchan Devi daughter of late Sheo Shankar Ram and wife of Santosh Paswan resident of village Besra, P.O. and P.S. Balumath, district – Latehar 7. Rinku Devi daughter of late Sheo Shankar Ram and wife of Rajesh Paswan resident of village Padma, P.O. and P.S. Padma, district – Hazaribagh 8. Shanti Devi wife of late Krishna Ram 9. Praduman Paswan son of late Krishna Ram 10. Pramod Paswan son of late Krishna Ram No.8 to 10 residents of village Tikar, P.O. P.S. and district – Chatra at present residing at village Jori, P.O. Jori, P.S. Basisthnagar, district – Chatra 11. Muniya Devi daughter of late Krishna Ram and wife of Prem Paswan resident of village Darha, P.O. Lamta, P.S. Simariya, district – Chatra 12. Chinta Devi daughter of late Krishna Ram and wife of Shankar Paswan resident of village Babhne, P.O. and P.S. Pratappur, district – Chatra 13. Manju Devi daughter of late Krishna Ram and wife of Ashok Paswan resident of village Dhankheri, P.O. and P.S. Itkhori, district – Chatra 2025:JHHC:31685 4 14. Babita Devi @ Jyoti Devi, S/o late Krishna Ram and wife of Surajdeo Paswan resident of village Panki, P.O. and P.S. Panki, district – Medninagar (Palamau) 15. Uday Paswan son of late Balram Ram 16. Dhanjay Paswan son of late Balram Ram No.15 and 16 residents of village Jori, P.O. Jori, P.S. Bashisthnagar, district Chatra 17. Tuniya Devi daughter of late Balram Ram and wife of Sakendra Paswan resident of village Hesatu, P.O. and P.S. Kunda, district – Chatra 18. Sri Prabhakar Ram son of late Ganesh Ram resident of village Jori, P.O. Jori, P.S. Basisthnagar (Jori), District – Chatra ….. … Principal Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 19. Rewati Raman Prasad son of late Jagarnath Prasad 20. Shyam Jee Prasad son of late Jagarnath Prasad 21. Ramjee Prasad son of late Jagarnath Prasad 22. Deoraj Prasad @ Pemnum son of late Jagarnath Prasad 23. Manoj Prasad son of late Girwardhar Prasad 24. Chukru Prasad son of late Girwardhar Prasad 25. Prabhakar Prasad son of late Girwardar Prasad 26. Name not known wife of Girwardhari Prasad, deceased 27. Name not known daughter of late Girwardhari Prasad 28. Name not known wife of Girwardhari Prasad, Deceased No.19 to 28 residents of Dhanhara, P.O. and P.S. Bikramganj, district – Shahabad (Bhojpur) Bihar … … Proforma Defendants/Respondents 2nd set/Respondents 29. Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal son of Late Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal resident of Marwari Mohall, P.O. and P.S. Chatra District – Chatra … … Defendant/Respondent 3rd set/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 10/13.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 30.06.2017 (decree signed on 13.07.2017) passed by learned District Judge III, Chatra whereby Civil Appeal No.17 of 2006 has been dismissed. The judgement of the trial court is dated 09.06.2006 2025:JHHC:31685 5 (decree signed on 22.06.2006) passed by learned Munsif at Chatra in Title Suit No.10 of 1991. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was dismissed and in the 1st appeal, the judgement was confirmed, and therefore, the plaintiffs are appellants before this Court. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that the land under Khata No. 1 of village Changer, measuring an area of 37.21 acres, was recorded in the last cadastral survey in the names of two ex-landlords, namely Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay, each having an equal half share. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming the property through hukumnama executed by Jagarnath Sahay and the son of Harihar Prasad. Harihar Prasad is the person in whose name the property was gifted by way of registered gift dated 09.08.1940 by Bhrigunath Sahay, who had no issue. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that there had been a partition between Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming title by way of hukumnama executed by Jagarnath Sahay and Shambhu Sharan, one of the sons of Harihar Prasad. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts, and therefore, a substantial question of law be framed. He has also submitted that the core issue involved in this case relates to issue nos.6 and 7 as framed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court has considered the said issues as point of determination no.1. 7. The case of the plaintiffs was that the land measuring 37.21 acres in khata no.1 was recorded in the name of Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay and after disruption they got half share each. Bhrigunath Sahay transferred his share in favour of Harihar Prasad by registered gift deed dated 09.08.1940, who in turn came in possession and died on 10.03.1943. Jagarnath Sahay instituted a Title Suit No.30 of 1945 challenging the gift deed and the suit was dismissed on 05.02.1949. It was further case of the plaintiffs that Jagarnath Sahay 2025:JHHC:31685 6 settled his share of the land with the plaintiffs on payment of either cash or produce and also the donee of the gift deed, Shambhu Sharan, orally made raiyati settlement with the plaintiffs and others out of which some settlements were confirmed by granting hukumnama and rent receipts. The plaintiffs continued to pay rent to the ex-landlord and thereafter to the State of Bihar. It was further case of the plaintiffs that after death of Harihar Prasad, his two sons instituted Rent Suit No.554/1944-1945 against the settlees raiyat including the plaintiffs and their ancestors for realization of arrears of rent in which Jagarnath Sahay was proforma defendant, who contested the suit and ultimately, it was held that the plaintiffs and their father came in possession over the land under Khata No.1 under the said registered deed of gift and the plaintiffs and their ancestors acquired right of occupancy under the raiyati settlement and also by virtue of adverse possession commencing from the year 1941. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Jagarnath Sahay, in order to grab the land of Bhrigunath Sahay, set up one Dukhan Sahu by getting a registered a registered sale deed executed by Kishori Devi, wife of late Harihar Prasad on 12.01.1956 with respect to the land under Khata No.1 in possession of plaintiffs and he started to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. This resulted in proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was converted into a proceeding under Section 146 Cr.P.C. and ultimately in Misc. Judicial Case No.56 of 1958 by order dated 07.02.1959, the learned Munsif declared the possession of 1st party i.e. Jiblal Mahto and others (Plaintiffs) and ultimately vide order dated 09.03.1959 their possession was declared. Jagarnath Sahay died leaving behind his five sons and out of them four sons were proforma defendant nos.5 to 8 and since one son died, his legal heirs were made proforma defendant nos.9 to 14 in the suit. It was further case of the plaintiffs that Rewati Raman Prasad and Ramjee Prasad vide registered sale deed dated 20.03.1979 without having any right, title and interest, transferred 15.38 acres of land under Khata No.1 and 41, which was already settled by their father Jagarnath Sahay in favour of different persons including the plaintiffs. The case of plaintiffs was that the defendants 2025:JHHC:31685 7 did not acquire right, title nor came in possession over Schedule C land under the registered sale deed dated 20.03.1979 and that defendant nos.1 to 4 on 15.06.1990 for the first time started to claim right over the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 15.11.1990 intended to interfere with the harvesting of paddy crops grown by the plaintiffs which casted a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and hence the suit was filed. 8. The suit was filed against 15 defendants in which defendant nos.1 to 4 were the principal defendants and rest were proforma defendants. Defendant no.15 was added. Defendant nos.1 to 4 contested the suit by filing joint written statement and defendant no.15 filed a separate written statement. 9. So far as the case of defendant nos.1 to 4 are concerned, they claim to have purchased the property from rightful owner registered sale deed dated 20.03.1979 and pleaded that the plaintiffs had challenged their registered sale deed after lapse of 12 years and the plaintiffs were not in possession over the suit land and possession of these defendants had already been declared. It was their case that the plaintiffs have named Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay to be landlord of Khata No.1 only having 8 anna share each. It has not been mentioned as to what happened in subsequent survey and the name of actual landlords were not mentioned. The defendants expressed ignorance with respect to Title Suit No.30 of 1945 and stated that the land in dispute was not specifically in dispute in the said title suit. It was asserted that Jagarnath Sahay never settled any land under Khata No.1 with the plaintiffs and Sambhu Sharan had also not settled any land with the plaintiffs either by hukumnama or oral and no rent either in cash or produce was ever paid with respect to Schedule A land. It was asserted that Schedule A land was not clearly and specifically described. They further expressed their ignorance with respect to rent suit alleged to have been filed against the plaintiffs in the year 1944- 45 and stated that plaintiffs never came in possession over the suit land. It was their case that Rewati and his brother continued in possession of the land in their share and after vesting, they filed 2025:JHHC:31685 8 petition seeking fixation of rent and after inquiry, rent was fixed and rent receipts were issued in their favour. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No.1 of 1975 against Rewati Raman Prasad in the court of Munsif for setting aside the order of fixation of rent in the name of Rewati Raman Prasad which was dismissed and, in all cases, the possession of Rewati was found. It was the case of the defendants that upon payment of full and sufficient consideration purchased the suit land and came in possession over the same. It was also their case that on 11.07.1979 the plaintiffs got the proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C and it was the defendants, who were found in possession of the property vide order dated 26.11.1981. 10. The contesting defendant no.15 sought declaration of his right, title and interest over Schedule A property of the written statement and prayed that the suit be dismissed. He admitted the case of the plaintiffs to the extent that after death of Bhrigunath Sahay, Title Suit No.30 of 1945 was instituted by Jagarnath Sahay for declaration of the gift deed to be void and inoperative which was dismissed by holding that Harihar Prasad had acquired title by virtue of the gift deed and came in possession. It was pleaded that Smt. Kishori Devi transferred land in Schedule A in favour of one Dukhan for cash consideration by executing the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1956 and thereafter Dukhan Sao came in possession, who had no male issue and he had only a daughter namely, Saroj Devi, who was married with Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal and defendant no.15 is the son of Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal, who has been living with Dukhan Sao for more than 45 years and after death of Dukan Sao, he came in exclusive possession of the suit land with respect to Schedule A as mentioned in written statement. It was asserted that plaintiffs or the defendant nos.1 to 14 have got no right, title and possession of the land in Schedule A of the written statement. 11. In the suit, altogether 8 issues were framed and the core issues were issue nos.6 and 7 as follows: - 6. Whether the plaintiffs have got title over the suit land by virtue of raiyati settlement and adverse possession since 1941 2025:JHHC:31685 9 and whether the plaintiffs have got possession over the suit land? 7. Whether the order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court dated 28.08.1963 in Civil Revision Case No. 158/61 relating to Title Partition Suit no. 130/58 is binding on the plaintiffs? 12. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. The learned trial court ultimately dismissed the suit. The learned trial court while deciding issue nos.6 and 7 against the plaintiffs held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their genesis of title with respect to the suit property on the basis of three registered hukumnamas and even failed to prove their possession with respect to the suit property. The court also recorded that defendant nos.1 to 4 also failed to prove their possession over the suit property but the plaintiffs would not get any benefit of weakness of the case of the defendants. The court also held that defendant no.15 also failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit property. The learned trial court decided both the issue nos.6 and 7 against the plaintiffs. 13. The plaintiffs filed the 1stappeal and the learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination: “1. Whether the findings recorded by learned lower court on issue nos. 6 & 7 are sustainable in the eye of law and fact? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower court require any interference from this court?” 14. A cross objection was also filed by the defendant no.15 before the learned 1st appellate court. 15. While considering the 1st point for determination, the learned 1st appellate court recorded that it was not in dispute that the property under khata no.1, area 37.21 acres, was recorded in cadastral survey in the name of ex-landlords, namely Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay, each having an equal half share. It was further recorded that one Kishori Devi, wife of Harihar Prasad, had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Dukhan Sao on 12.01.1956. However, the court observed that the registered deed is dated 13.11.1956 and not 12.01.1956 and such inconsistency was ignored as the execution of the 2025:JHHC:31685 10 deed was admitted. The plaintiffs were seeking a declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over “Schedule C” property and in the alternative, recovery of possession if they are found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. The “Schedule C” property was transferred under a registered deed of sale dated 20.03.1979 by Rewati Raman Prasad and Ramjee Prasad in favour of defendant nos.1 to 4 appertaining to Khata Nos.1 and 41. The details of the property are mentioned in paragraph 24 of the impugned 1st appellate court’s judgement. 16. The learned court recorded that the plaintiffs had pleaded that there was a disruption between Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay and each got 8-anna (half) share under khata no.1 of village Changer. However, there was neither any specific pleading nor any evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs as to whether in the said disruption, certain plots under khata no.1 came into the exclusive possession of Bhrigunath Sahay and some plots into the exclusive share of Jagarnath Sahay or both got half and half share in each and every plot under Khata No.1. The court also recorded that there was neither any pleading nor any evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs that if some of the plots under khata no.1 came in exclusive possession of Bhrigunath Sahay and some other plots of khata no.1 came in exclusive share and possession of Jagarnath Sahay. 17. The court also recorded that the plaintiffs had pleaded that Bhrigunath Sahay had no issue and had transferred his share in favour of Harihar Prasad by a deed of gift dated 09.08.1940 (Exhibit 2). The court took note of the translated copy of Exhibit 2, which disclosed that Bhrigunath Sahay transferred his half share in Touzi No.28, Khewat no.2 of Mouza Changer, District – Hazaribagh and three decimals land of Mouza Dhanhara, District Shahabad. The court recorded that if the land under Khata No.1 of village Changer had already been partitioned between Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay, then specific plot numbers with boundaries would have been transferred by Bhrigunath Sahay in favour of Harihar Prasad, but it was not done. The learned court disbelieved the pleading of the 2025:JHHC:31685 11 plaintiffs that there was disruption between both ex-landlords as the same was not substantiated by evidence. 18. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter took into consideration the various hukumnamas, by virtue of which the plaintiffs were claiming title over the “Schedule C” suit property and rejected each of the hukumnamas by citing reasons, which are quoted as under: “Be that as it may, the plaintiffs are claiming title over schedule-C of the suit land by virtue of Hukumnama granted by Jagarnath Sahay and oral settlement made by Shambhu Sharan S/o Harihar Prasad in which some oral settlements were confirmed by him by granting Hukumnama and rent receipts. The plaintiffs have brought three Hukumnama on the record in which first Hukumnama is Ext.3. As per translated copy of this Ext.3, by this Hukumnama Shambhu Sharan made raiyati settlement of 40 decimals land out of his share under Khata no.1, plot no.820 in favour of Bifai Koeri. The land under Khata no.1, plot no.820 is not subject matter of schedule-C of the suit land. Therefore this Ext.3 does not support claim of title of the plaintiffs over schedule-C land. Second Hukumnama is Ext.3/A. As per translated copy of this Ext.3/A, by this Hukumnama Shambhu Sharan made raiyati settlement of 72 decimals land out of his share under Khata no.1, plot no.562 area 32 decimals and plot no.820 area 40 decimals in favour of Jeolal Mahto. The land under Khata no.1,plot no.562 and 820 are also not subject matter of schedule-C of the suit land. So, this Ext.3/A also does not support claim of title of the plaintiffs over schedule-C land. Third Hukumnama is Ext.9. This Hukumnama has been marked exhibit at the appellate stage U/o XLI rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. According to the judgment passed by the learned lower court in default of ascertainment of stamp duty this Hukumnama could not have been marked as exhibit but it has been considered by the learned lower court. Before the learned court below the plaintiffs filed Hindi translation of this Hukumnama and it was shown that it was adhbatai Hukumnama and it was executed by Jagarnath Sahay in favour of Harlal Mahto but Harlal Mahto is stranger. Before this court also the appellant-plaintiffs have filed Hindi translation of Ext.9 showing this time that it was executed by Jagarnath Sahay in favour of Jilal Mahto. In such fact and circumstance the learned lower court held that this Hukumnama was not helping the plaintiffs to lay claim of their title over schedule-C land. As per translated copy filed in this court of this Ext.9, by this Hukumnama Jagarnath Sahay made adhbatai 2025:JHHC:31685 12 settlement of land appertaining to khata no.1 plot no.30 area 5 acres, plot no.5 area 3 acres, plot no.859 area 22 decimals and plot no.862 area23 decimals. It has been shown that 5 plots have been settled by this Hukumnama but in fact only 4 plots have been detailed in this Hukumnama and out of four plots only plot no.30 finds place mentioning in schedule-C of of the suit land and rest are out of it. In schedule-C title has been claimed over 5.32 acres land of plot no.30 of khata no.1 but as per Ext.9 only 5 acres of plot no.30 has been subject matter of the Hukumnama. The plaintiffs have not brought on the record the zamindari receipt in respect of the said plot. This Hukumnama is thus neither supported by zamindari rent receipt nor return submitted by the ex-landlord nor Register-II. So, this Ext.9 in itself is not sufficient to prove title of the plaintiffs over schedule-C land or over any plot mentioned in the schedule-C. A Hukumnama can be created anytime anywhere. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that some land under khata no.1 was orally settled by the ex-landlords in their favour and detail of such settlement has been given in schedule-A of the plaint. When I go through schedule-A and schedule-C then I find that some plots though find place in schedule-C but not in schedule-A. It means the plaintiffs are claiming that land also about which there is no pleading that it was either orally settled or settled through Hukumnama. Furthermore these alleged oral settlement is neither followed by zamindari rent receipt nor return submitted by the ex-landlords nor mutation order nor tenant register i.e. register-II. So, pleading of the plaintiffs in this regard is without legal proof” 19. The learned 1st appellate court also discussed the other documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs, including the rent receipts as exhibited and by citing reasons held that Exhibit 1 series (Exhibit 1 to 1/x) did not prove even payment of rent on behalf of the plaintiffs with respect to the “Schedule C” property. The court also recorded that Exhibit 2, which is a registered deed of gift, one of the ex-landlords namely Bhrigunath Sahay transferred half share in Khata No.1 of suit mouza and another land in favour of Harihar Prasad. The deed of gift was challenged by Jagarnath Sahay in Title Suit No.30 of 1945, but the suit was dismissed vide Exhibit 6 and by this way Exhibit 2 was recognized by a court of law. 2025:JHHC:31685 13 20. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter discussed the findings of the learned trial court and also other evidences placed on record. The plea of adverse possession was rejected by holding that the possession, if any, by the plaintiffs has not been peaceful. 21. The learned 1st appellate court recorded its finding at paragraph 29 as follows: “29. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the plaintiffs are claiming title over schedule-C of the suit land on the basis of three Hukumnama and oral settlement and also by adverse possession. But out of three Hukumnama two are not related with schedule-C of the suit land and although one plot in third Hukumnama is also included in schedule-C land but this third Hukumnama and alleged oral settlement is not followed by zamindari receipt, return submitted by the ex-landlords, mutation order, tenants ledger and government rent receipt or even any one of these documents. The Ext.1-series which are government rent receipts are either not related with schedule-C of the suit land or it is in the name of father of the plaintiffs which is beyond pleading. The claim of the plaintiffs to have acquired title over Schedule-C of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession is found to be not tenable. The learned lower court has rightly recorded finding on issue no.6 that the plaintiffs have not acquired title over the suit land” 22. The learned 1st appellate court also observed that the trial court, while adjudicating issue nos.6 and 7, had recorded a finding that defendant nos.1 to 4 had proved their title and interest over the suit land. However, after considering the materials on record, held that the conclusion of the learned trial court that defendant nos.1 to 4 had proved the title over the suit land i.e. “Schedule C” land, was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the 1stappellate court held that neither the plaintiffs nor defendant nos.1 to 4 could prove their title over the suit land. 23. Defendant no.15 had also exhibited certified copy of registered deed of sale dated 13.11.1956 which was marked Exhibit 1 in the series of defendant nos.1 to 4, which was corrected by the learned 1st appellate court and marked as Exhibits A-G. Defendant no. 15 challenged the trial court’s judgment and decree by filing a cross- 2025:JHHC:31685 14 objection, asserting that the trial court ought to have held that he had acquired right, title, and interest over the “Schedule A” property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 13.11.1956. However, the trial court held that defendant no.15 had failed to prove title over the suit land. 24. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that defendant no.15 had not filed the sale deed dated 13.11.1956 before the learned trial court but exhibited the same before the learned 1st appellate court, which was marked as Exhibits A-G. According to the pleadings of defendant no.15, the land covered under Exhibits A-G was purchased by Dukhan Sao, the maternal grandfather of defendant no.15, from the wife of Harihar Prasad. Upon the death of Dukhan Sao, defendant no.15, through his mother, acquired title over the same. 25. The court recorded that it was submitted by defendant no.15 that after death of Harihar Prasad, his wife Kishori Devi inherited the land covered under the gift deed executed in favour of Harihar Prasad by the ex-landlord Bhrigunath Sahay. However, the recital in Exhibits A-G was contrary to the submission of defendant no.15. It was recorded that in a proceeding before the learned Munsif, Hazaribagh in Misc. Judicial Case No.56 of 1958 (Exhibit 4/A), Dukhan Sao had asserted that the land covered under the sale deed dated 12.11.1956 was settled in favour of Kishori Devi, wife of Harihar Prasad by Shambhu Sharan and Bhikham Prasad, sons of Harihar Prasad. The court recorded that the contention of defendant no.15 was against the admission made by the predecessor-in-interest. There was no evidence on behalf of defendant no. 15 as to whether Harihar Prasad died before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 26. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter, after considering the materials, recorded that the learned trial court rightly gave a finding that defendant no.15 had not been able to prove his title over the suit land. Further, the court also recorded that defendant no.15 had although claimed his title over the land detailed in “Schedule A” of the written statement but he had not filed any counter claim before the learned trial court after paying proper court fees and he was claiming a 2025:JHHC:31685 15 relief of declaration of his title over the land by way of cross-objection which was not tenable in the eyes of law. 27. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately answered the point of determination no.1 by holding that, although the trial court was right in recording finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title over the suit land, and the learned trial court was also right in recording of finding that defendant no.15 has failed to prove his title over the suit land, but the finding of the trial court that defendant nos.1 to 4 have proved their title over the suit land was also erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 28. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately dismissed the cross- objection of defendant no.15, who was respondent no.15 before the learned 1st appellate court. 29. The 2nd point for determination was answered by the learned 1st appellate court as under: “I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower court. The learned lower court has discussed all documentary and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. Before this court only documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties were referred and this court also did not find essential to discuss elaborately the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties as documentary evidence always supersedes oral evidence. It has already been found that the findings of the learned lower court that the defendants no.1 to 4 have been able to prove their title over the suit land is erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law and fact. Such erroneous findings compel this court to interfere with the judgment to set aside the same. But the decree passed by the learned lower court dismissing the suit is well sustainable in the eye of law and fact and it does not require any interference from this court. This point of determination is answered accordingly.” 30. Operative portion of the judgement passed by the learned 1st appellate court is also quoted as under: “The present appeal is dismissed on contest with cost against the contesting respondents and without cost against the non- contesting respondents. The cross objection of respondent no.15 is dismissed. The finding of learned lower court that defendant nos.1 to 4 have proved their title over the suit land is hereby set aside. With this modification the Judgment dated 09.06.2006 and the Decree dated22.06.2006 passed by the learned Munsif, Chatra in Title Suit No. 10 of 1991 is hereby affirmed.” 2025:JHHC:31685 16 31. This Court finds that the learned trial court while deciding the core issue nos.6 and 7 against the plaintiffs held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their genesis of title with respect to the suit property on the basis of three unregistered hukumnamas and their claim for settlement and even failed to prove their possession with respect to the suit property. The court also recorded that defendant nos.1 to 4 also failed to prove their possession over the suit property but the plaintiffs would not get any benefit of weakness of the case of the defendants. The court also held that the defendant no.15 also failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit property. The learned trial court decided both issue nos.6 and 7 against the plaintiffs. However, the learned trial court while deciding issue nos.1,2,4,5 and 8 held that the plaintiffs have not produced any cogent evidence and have failed to prove their right, title, interest and possession with respect to the suit property and defendant nos.1 to 4 had acquired title by virtue of registered documents and have got their name mutated and are paying rent to the State Government. 32. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court after considering the material on record upheld the findings of the learned trial court against the plaintiffs-appellants with respect to their claim of title and possession. The learned 1st appellate court also observed that the trial court, while adjudicating issue nos.6 and 7 had recorded a finding that defendant nos.1 to 4 had proved their title and interest over the suit land and the learned 1st appellate court after considering the materials on record, held that the conclusion of the learned trial court that defendant nos.1 to 4 had proved the title over the suit land i.e. “Schedule C” land, was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the 1stappellate court held that neither the plaintiffs nor defendant nos.1 to 4 could prove their title over the suit land. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the merits of the claim of defendant no.15 and also considered the additional evidence of registered sale deed filed by him at the 1st appellate court and recorded a finding that defendant no.15 has also failed to prove his case with respect to “Schedule C” property. The 1st appellate court also considered that 2025:JHHC:31685 17 defendant no. 15 had not filed any counter claim before the learned trial court after paying proper court fees and defendant no.15 was claiming a relief of declaration of his title over the land by way of cross-objection which was not tenable in the eyes of law. The learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal against the contesting respondents (defendant no. 1 to 4) and also against the non-contesting respondents and set aside the finding of the learned trial court that the defendant nos.1 to 4 had proved their title over the suit land. The judgement of the learned trial court was modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal was dismissed. 33. The suit property was recorded in the name of two ex-landlords Bhrigunath Sahay and Jagarnath Sahay and plaintiffs claimed that after disruption each got half share and claimed that after disruption Bhrigunath Sahay gifted the property to Harihar Prasad by registered deed of gift dated 09.08.1940 and the plaintiffs claimed the Schedule C property through settlements. The learned court rejected the plea of the plaintiffs that there was disruption between the two ex-landlords and also rejected the plea of gift deed dated 09.08.1940 (Exhibit-2), to Harihar Prasad inter alia, on the ground that no specific plot and boundary was mentioned in the gift deed and the plaintiffs claimed the property covered by gift deed also through oral settlement given by the donee. The learned courts have also rejected the plea of adverse possession. 34. The court considered that the plaintiffs were claiming property by virtue of unregistered hukumnamas/oral settlements and it was the case of the plaintiffs that they got the suit property by virtue of unregistered hukumnamas / oral settlements from Jagarnath Sahay and also from sons of Harihar Prasad and acquired occupancy right and adverse possession commencing from 1941. The learned courts have given concurrent findings after discussion each of the three hukumnamas/ claims of settlement that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim over the suit property on the basis of the hukumnamas/claims of settlement and other materials on record. 2025:JHHC:31685 18 35. This Court finds that both the courts have held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title and possession with respect to the suit property. 36. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court and also by the learned 1st appellate court with respect to claim of right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case. This Court finds that the impugned judgement is a well-reasoned judgement after considering every aspect of the matter and after appreciating the materials on record. 37. This Court finds no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law is involved in this case. Consequently, this 2nd appeal is hereby dismissed. 38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 39. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 13.10.2025. Saurav/Mukul Uploaded on 26.12.2025