2025:JHHC:12894 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 209 of 2018 1. Fulwa @ Prema Mostt., age 43 years, wife of Late Naresh Singh. 2. Ravindra Singh, age 27 years. 3. Sachindra Singh, age 21 years. Both sons of Late Naresh Singh. 4. Maya Devi, age 25 years. 5. Mamta Devi, age 23 years. Both daughters of Late Naresh Singh. 6. Kedar Singh, age 53 years, son of Late Horil Singh. 7. Ramu Singh, age 50 years, son of Late Horil Singh. 8. Upendra Singh, age 44 years, son of Mahesh Singh. All residents of village- Karso, P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Arjun Rana. 2. Ramdas Rana. 3. Aditya Rana. 4. Bijendra Rana. (1) to (4) all sons of Late Mohan Rana, residents of Village- Karso, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribag. 5. Mostt. Sarshiwa @ Sarshwati Devi, Daughter of Late Mohan Rana, Wife of Late Shambhu Rana, resident of Village- Mangura, P.O.- Kariyatpur, P.S.- Ichak, District- Hazaribag. … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate --- 12/30.04.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.03.2018 passed by District Judge-III, Hazaribag, in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2014 by which the judgment dated 29.09.2014 and decree dated 10.11.2014 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Hazaribag in Title Suit No. 06 of 2001 has been confirmed. 3. The defendants are the appellants before this Court. 2025:JHHC:12894 2 4. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 27th January, 2025 on the following substantial question of law:- IV. Whether the judgment of the learned courts below is vitiated for irrelevant consideration of the Exhibit-F [which is certified copy of sale deed dated 10.01.1947] from which it is evident that Khata Number mentioned in the sale deed is 122 and the suit Khata No. is 121 and therefore, the finding of the courts in relation to Exhibit-F are perverse? 5. The records of this case reveal that the Title Suit was filed seeking adjudication of plaintiff’s right over the schedule ‘A’ land and for confirmation of possession and for the further relief that the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit land. The schedule ‘A’ of the property is as under:- Land of Khata No. :- 121, Village Karso, P.S.: Barhi, District: Hazaribagh, Plot No. 3846 bounded to:- North Parti Gadha South Tand of Bihari Singh East Soti Singh West Chamari Singh Amended Area 3.25 Acre Case of the Plaintiffs:- 6. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the land of the plaintiffs was in Khata No. 121 Mauza Karso recorded as Gair Majarua Khas of the erstwhile landlady Smt. Kalawati Kuery, who settled the same in favour of Chaman Barhi by virtue of registered Patta deed No. 8 dated 03.01.1947 in connection with Plot No. 3846 area 6.5 acres out of 61.40 acres of land. Chaman Barhi died leaving behind Mohan Rana, Ramlal Rana, Raghu Rana and Mahadeo Rana who partitioned the inherited property and came in exclusive possession of the share. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that Ramalal Rana sold his share in plot No. 3846 in favour of the mother of the plaintiff through registered deed of sale No. 13233 dated 27.10.1983 measuring an area of 1 acre 2025:JHHC:12894 3 62 ½ decimal having boundary North- Land of Lukhari Devi, South by land of Mahadeo Rana, East- Soti and West by Chamari Singh and upon death of Mohan Rana alongwith the mother, the same was inherited by plaintiffs, who were in possession of the lands. It was the case of the plaintiffs that out of 6.5 acres land in plot No. 3846 they had remained in possession of 3.25 acres while Raghu Rana and Mahadeo Rana remained in possession of the rest of the land in plot No. 3846 and sold the same to a number of purchasers. 7. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants without having any title and possession over the suit property claimed title over the same and attempted to enter their names during the survey settlement and there was a threat of forcible possession of the land and therefore the suit was filed. Case of the Defendants:- 8. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs were never occupancy Raiyats of 3.25 acres of land in plot No. 3846 Khata No. 121 of Village Karso, P.S. Barhi and no land as described in Schedule to the plaint ever exist. 9. It was also asserted that the suit land was Tanr and some portion of the same is a part of the forest land. The defendants further asserted that their claim over an area of 12.60 acres of land in plot No. 3846 pertaining to Khata No. 121/14 of village Karso, P.S. Barhi but they did not deny the factum that Kalawati Kuery was the landlady of the same property. 10. It was the specific case of the defendants that the said landlady had already settled the suit land in favour of the defendants and Chaman Barhi never came into possession of Plot No. 3846. It was asserted by the defendants that the documents in favour of Chaman Barhi was forged and fabricated and no title had accrued to him by virtue of the said document. It was also denied that the sons of Chaman Barhi ever came into possession of land in plot No. 3846 upon his death. “Ramlal Rana had no any right, title and interest over the suit land to execute sale-deed in the name of the mother of the plaintiff nor said Lukhari 2025:JHHC:12894 4 Devi ever came in possession of the suit land on the basis of the aforesaid deed of sale”. The defendants claimed to have been paying rent in connection with the suit land since the time of settlement of same in their favour and hence the suit of the plaintiffs may be dismissed. 11. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: - “I. Whether the suit as framed, is maintainable in present form? II. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession, law of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence? III. Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action for the suit? IV. Whether the plaintiffs title over the Schedule ‘A’ land be declared and possession over the same be confirmed? V. Whether the defendants be restrained permanently from interfering with the possession over the suit land? VI. To what other relief or reliefs, to which the plaintiffs are entitled to?” 12. The plaintiffs had examined four witnesses which is as follows:- P.W. 1 Baijnath Gope P.W. 2 Dilo Rabidas P.W. 3 Ravindra Rana P.W. 4 Arjun Rana 13. The defendants had examined six witnesses which is as follows:- D.W. 1 Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh Narayan Singh D.W. 2 Deoki Sao D.W. 3 Indradeo Gope D.W. 4 Mahru Mian D.W. 5 Rajendra Singh D.W. 6 Jhari Gope 14. So far as the documentary evidences are concerned, Exhibit 1/A was the original Patta No. 45 dated 03.01.1947 which was duly registered. 2025:JHHC:12894 5 15. The details of the witnesses examined by the respective parties and the documents exhibited by the respective parties are mentioned in paragraph 6 to 10 of the learned trial court’s judgment which is quoted as under:- “6. Upon settlement of issues plaintiffs have examined four witnesses whereas defendants have examined six witnesses. 7. The witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs are P.W.1, Baijnath Gope; P.W.2, Dilo Rabidas; P.W.3, Ravindra Rana; and P.W.4, Arjun Rana. 8. The defendants, on the other hand, have examined D.W.1, Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh Narayan Singh; D.W.2 Deoki Sao; D.W.3, Indradeo Gope; D.W.4, Mahru Mian; D.W.5, Rajendra Singh; and D.W.6, Jhari Gope. 9. The following documents have been marked as exhibits on behalf of the plaintiffs:- Ext.1 Original sale-deed 13233 Ext.1/A Original sale-deed 45 Ext.2 to 2/F Govt. rent-receipts. Ext.3 C.C. of order of S.D.O., Barhi. 10. The following documents have been marked as exhibits on behalf of the defendants:- Ext.A to A/1 Two Zamindari receipts. Ext.B to B/17 Govt. rent-receipts. Ext.C Hukumnama Ext.D C.C. of Register-II Ext.E C.C. of Tanaza” 16. The learned trial court decreed the suit and decided issue Nos. I, III, IV, V & VI in favour of the plaintiffs and recorded findings in connection with identity of the property in paragraph 25 of its judgment, which is quoted as under:- “25 From appreciation of materials and evidences brought on record, it is found that the land was settled in favour of Chaman Barhi by virtue of a registered deed of Patta while the land settled in favour of Horil Singh was by virtue of an unregistered Hukumnama. Thus, unregistered Hukumnama has no evidentiary value and no any other evidence has been brought on record by the defendants to show the manner of acquisition of 12.60 acres of land by Horil Singh. Furthermore, the boundary of the suit property as given by the plaintiffs is consistent with his pleading and other evidences brought on record while the boundary of the land settled in favour of defendants by virtue of unregistered Hukumnama shows forest land on its three boundary. Furthermore, the rent-receipts of defendants are for 12.60 acres 2025:JHHC:12894 6 while as per exhibit deed the same has been shown as 12.60 Bigha. As regards Ext. E the same has an endorsement to the effect “not final”. The materials and evidences brought on record by the plaintiffs are consistent and point towards title and possession over the suit property. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs have valid title and possession over the scheduled property and they are further entitled for a decree restraining the defendants permanently from interfering with the possession of the suit land. Issues No. IV and V are as such decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.” 17. With regard to issue No. II, the learned court has recorded that no evidence has been led by either party on this issue and hence this issue is not decided. 18. So far as learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the impugned judgment as well as the records as received from the learned 1st appellate court reveal that the certified copy of Exhibit 1/A was produced on behalf of the defendants who were the appellants before the 1st appellate court as additional evidence and the additional evidence was allowed and marked as Exhibit F. The order by which the additional evidence was allowed is dated 17.02.2018. The perusal of the said order reveal that the additional evidence was led primarily on the ground that there was a mismatch with respect to Khata in original Exhibit 1/A as compared to its certified copy. In the certified copy the Khata number was mentioned as 122 and in the original deed the Khata number was mentioned as 121 and the suit was also filed by referring to Khata No. 121. Arguments of the appellant. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the 1st appellate court’s judgment has submitted that since the certified copy reveal that the correct khata number was 122 so far as the Exhibit 1/A is concerned, therefore, the filing of the suit in connection with Khata No. 121 based on Exhibit 1/A was itself not in accordance with the law. 20. He has submitted that in the Exhibit 1/A, which was the original deed there was certain manipulation and overwriting on the same which is apparent from the document itself. The learned counsel submits that while considering this aspect of the matter, the learned 1st appellate 2025:JHHC:12894 7 court has not taken this aspect of the matter into consideration while dismissing the appeal. He has submitted that error in the khata number goes to the root of matter and only on this ground the appeal was to be allowed and the decree was to be set aside. 21. He has submitted that the substantial question of law be answered in favour of the appellants and the judgment and decree of both the courts be set aside. Arguments of the respondents. 22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that merely because there is some alleged mismatch in connection with the Khata number in the certified copy of the original deed as produced, the same by itself is not enough to set aside the judgment and decree of both the courts. 23. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs had already proved the identity of the property by referring to the boundary and other evidences placed on record. The document was itself a registered document and the original was produced by the plaintiffs but no plea was taken by the defendants in their written submission regarding any mismatch in the khata number nor the written statement was ever amended even at the first appellate stage and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 24. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that the impact of the mismatch with respect to the certified copy and the original deed produced by the defendants at the first appellate stage and plaintiffs at the stage of trial has not been considered by the learned 1st appellate court. 25. The findings of learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of its judgment is quoted as under:- “16. Therefore, from above case of both the parties, it is admitted by both the parties that suit property which is described in Schedule- ‘A’ of the plaint which was recorded in survey settlement as Gairmazaruwa Khas of the ex-landlord Smt. Kalawati Kuari W/O Jairam Bharos Pandit. Further it is also admitted by both the 2025:JHHC:12894 8 parties that Chaman Barhi had 4 sons as admitted in para 15 of the WS, Mohan Rana, Ramlal Rana, Raghu Rana, Mahdeo Rana who inherited the land of their father. 18. Therefore, from discussion of plaintiff documentary evidence, it is established that plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit property which is described in Schedule-‘A’ through registered sale-deed Ext. 1 from Chaman Rana who got it through registered Patta No. 45 dated 13.01.1947 executed by ex-landlady Smt. Kalawati Kueri W/O Jairam Bharos Pandit and their name was mutated as they are paying rent Malguzari to the State Government which is also established by Exts.- 2 series. 19. On the other hand, Ext. C which is an unregistered Hukumnama dated 04.04.1941 on which basis the defendants/appellants claiming title over the suit land which is executed by Mosstt. Maharaja Kuery W/O Late Mahabir Panda as per PW-2 Para 3 in examination-in-chief although it is illegible. Therefore, the defendants/appellants are claiming title over the suit land on the basis of unregistered Hukumnama Ext. C which is illegible. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/respondents is claiming title on the basis of registered sale deed Ext. 1 which is executed by Chaman Barhi who had got title on the basis of registered settlement Ext. 1/a in the year 1947, the settlement is executed by Mosstt. Maharaja Kueri W/O Late Mahabir Panda. Ext. A series which are not illegible nor the document of title. Exts.B series are the Malguzari receipts which are also not a document of title. Ext. D is certified copy of Register II in the name of Horil Singh, father of the defendant. Ext. E is certified copy of order dated 15.07.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer from which it transpires that the petition of the plaintiff was rejected but the said order and Register II certified copy Ext. D were not confirmed the title in favour of the defendant. 20. Therefore, from above discussion, of documentary evidence it transpires that the defendants are claiming title on the basis of unregistered Hukumnama Ext. C and the plaintiffs are claiming the title on the basis of Ext. 1 registered sale deed which is in favour of plaintiff’s mother executed by Ramlal Rana whose grand-father get the suit property through registered patta no. 45 dated 03.01.1947. Since the plaintiffs claiming title on the basis of registered document of the suit property which is Ext. 1 registered sale deed executed by Ramlal Rana whose father get the schedule property through registered Patta in the year 1947. Thus, the plaintiffs get better title. 21. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants argued that the plaintiffs claim on the basis of playing fraud. Their name mutated as because in their vendor registered settlement in the year 1947, khata no. 121 is written, but by fraud it is khata No. 2025:JHHC:12894 9 122 has been manipulated, and the same transpires from Ext. F certified copy of sale deed Ext. 1/a. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in a decision reported in AIR 1963 SC 1870 Sheo Dhayen Singh and others Vrs. Mrs. Sachindra Kaur and others held that the conflict between boundary, khata and plot number, khata number and boundary shall prevail. The Hon’ble High Court Patna also held in a decision reported in AIR 2005 Patna 23 Ramji Rai and others Vrs. Deoki Nandan Rai and others that mistake in plot number be treated as more discrepancy which did not identify the property sold. The case which is in hand, it is also a minor discrepancy which not effect identify a property sold in the year 1947. And after then it is again in the year 1983 by the purchaser, and his name is mutated since 1947. Therefore, from the discussion of documentary evidence, I find and hold that the plaintiff has better title over the suit property on the basis of documentary evidence as discussed above.” 26. The learned counsel has submitted that a reference has been made in paragraph 21 of the learned 1st appellate court’s judgment that any mistake in plot number is a minor discrepancy and the identity of the property is required to be seen. Rejoinder arguments of the appellants. 27. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has merely referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1879 and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 2005 Patna 23 has observed that mistake in plot number be treated as mere discrepancy and has further observed that the case in hand, it is also a minor discrepancy which does not affect the identity of the property sold in the year 1947. 28. The learned counsel submits that on the face of Exhibit F which was produced as additional evidence and its mismatch with Exhibit 1/A, the learned 1st appellate court ought to have formulated a point for determination as to whether such mismatch has any bearing on the identity of the property? In absence of such point for determination and further such finding on this point, the matter is requited to be remanded back to the learned 1st appellate court for fresh consideration with 2025:JHHC:12894 10 regard to identity of the property and an impact of mismatch in Exhibit 1/A and Exhibit F. 29. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the citation mentioned in paragraph 21 with respect to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is incorrect, the same judgment is also reported in 1962 BLJR (SC) 273 and the learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1879. 30. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that as per Exhibit E, the plaintiffs were aware of the fact that there was some discrepancy in the Exhibit 1/A but the suit was filed by referring to property in Khata No. 121 and no pleading was made in connection with Khata No. 122 to which the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Exhibit E was not final proceeding and the learned courts have not placed any reliance of such document and on the basis of such document, no admission can be imputed on the part of the plaintiffs. Findings of this Court. 31. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly the original patta was produced by the plaintiffs as Exhibit 1/A which was the sheet anchor of the claim of the plaintiffs. So far as the defendants is concerned, the certified copy of Exhibit 1/A was produced before the learned 1st appellate court as additional evidence which was marked as Exhibit F. The only reason for admitting the said document as additional evidence at the appellate stage was that it indicated mismatch in connection with the description of the property, so far as the khata number is concerned. 32. The learned 1st appellate court had admitted the said document as additional evidence but did not frame any issue as to whether the alleged mismatch between Exhibit 1/A and Exhibit F has any bearing in the matter particularly in connection with the identity of the disputed property between the parties? 2025:JHHC:12894 11 33. The learned 1st appellate court while passing the impugned judgment has taken care of the fact that there is a mismatch but while recording the finding in paragraph 21 has simply held that the case which is in hand is of a minor discrepancy which does not affect the identity of the property sold in the year 1947. This Court is of the considered view that the learned 1st appellate court not only ought to have framed a point for determination to this effect but also ought to have recorded a finding after appreciating the materials on record as to whether the certified copy as produced by the defendants before the 1st appellate court has any bearing on the identity of the property? 34. The learned 1st appellate court considered the same issue as framed by the learned trial court and no point for determination was framed by the learned 1st appellate court with regard to identity of the property in the light of the additional evidence which was placed before the learned 1st appellate court. 35. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the substantial question of law as framed is answered as follows: - The certified copy of the sale deed [Exhibit-F-certified copy of sale deed dated 10.01.1947] which was produced by the defendants as additional evidence at the 1st appellate stage admittedly did not fall for consideration at the stage of trial ; the learned 1st appellate court having admitted the additional evidence Exhibit-F [which is certified copy of sale deed dated 10.01.1947] has not at all considered the impact of the same on the identity of the property as there was material mismatch between the original sale deed exhibited as Exhibit-1/A before the learned trial court and its certified copy (Exhibit-F) in as much as Khata Number did not match; therefore the impugned judgement of the learned 1st appellate court is perverse on account of non-consideration of the impact and consequences of such mismatch in the light of the other materials on record with respect to the identity of the suit property involved in this case. 2025:JHHC:12894 12 36. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned 1st appellate court having admitted Exhibit F as additional evidence ought to have considered the impact of such additional evidence with respect to the claim of the respective parties. The learned 1st appellate court having not framed appropriate point for determination which also required scrutiny of the materials placed on record, the learned 1st appellate court has not recorded any finding in connection with the identity of the property. Therefore, the matter is required to be decided afresh by the leaned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned 1st appellate court for fresh consideration in accordance with law after framing appropriate points for determination and pass fresh judgment in accordance with law. 37. The respective parties to appear before the learned 1st appellate court on 01st August, 2025 by filing fresh vakalatnama. 38. Since the Title Suit is of the year 2001, a fresh judgment be passed by the learned 1st appellate court as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the respective parties. The parties to co-operate. 39. Pending I.A, if any, is closed. 40. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through “FAX/E-mail”. 41. This Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-