2025:JHHC:13486 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 5 of 2016 1. Kailash Singh, son of late Ramnandan Singh, resident of Duhatand, P.S. Dhansar, P.O. & District: Dhanbad. (Dead and Substituted vide order dated 22.06.2023) 1. (a) Jamuna Devi, Wife of late Kailash Singh. 1. (b) Uma Shankar Singh, son of late Kailash Singh. 1. (c) Rajendra Kumar Singh, son of late Kailash Singh. 1. (d) Mahesh Kumar, son of late Kailash Singh. 1. (e) Usha Devi, Daughter of late Kailash Singh. 1. (f) Pushpa Devi, Daughter of late Kailash Singh No. 1 (a) to 1 (f) are residents of Duhaatand, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad. … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Jagarnath Ram, son of Late Dukhu Ram, resident of Duhatand, P.S. Dhansar, P.O. & District: Dhanbad. 2. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) 3. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC-I For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate --- 26/05.05.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.09.2015 (decree singed on 19.09.2015) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 149 of 2007 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The trial court’s judgment has been passed by the learned Additional Munsif-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 48 of 1994 whereby the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.09.2007 (decree signed on 04.10.2007). 3. Plaintiff is the appellant before this Court against judgement of affirmance. 4. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 13th September, 2019 on the following substantial question of law:- 2025:JHHC:13486 2 “Whether non-consideration of Ext.6 series by the trial court as well as the appellate court comes to the root of the case and as Ext.6 series has not been considered by the court below and interpretation of a document is a substantial questions of law.” 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that Exhibit 6 series has not been considered by both the learned courts and therefore, the impugned judgments passed by both the courts are perverse and are fit to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has submitted that all the materials on record have been taken into consideration and the impugned judgments do not call for any interference. He has further referred to Exhibit 6 series and also to the exhibits filed by the defendants to submit that some of the exhibits are of the same proceedings filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendants and has also submitted that in none of the exhibits relied upon by the plaintiff relating to Exhibit 6 series i.e. Exhibit 6 to 6/d, right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff has been declared in any manner rather Exhibit 6 series i.e. Exhibit 6 to 6/d reveal that the authority did not pronounce finally on account of pendency of the suit. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that even the M-Form was not exhibited. However, the perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that the Ex-Zamindar claimed only 0.54 decimals of land in M-Form. The learned counsel has also submitted that Exhibit 6 Series has no bearing in this case and the impugned judgments are well reasoned judgments and therefore, the same would not be call for any interference. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the suit land described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint which is as under:- 2025:JHHC:13486 3 SCHEDULE ‘A’ Within District Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, Mouza No. 47, Mouza: Duhatand, Plot No. 423, area 0.45 acres in Khata No. 18 butted and bounded as follows:- North Surendra Singh & Others, S/O Ramjosh Singh South Niz land of Purchaser East Jagannath Dwedi and others, S/O Ramayan Dwedi West Basin Turi 9. As per the case of the plaintiff, the suit property has been recorded as “Anabad Mallik Land” in the cadastral survey record of rights. Khewat No. 2/1 stood recorded in the name of Ramesh Chandra Chakraborty; Khewat No. 2/2 stood recorded in the name of Shyama Charan Chakraborty; Khewat No. 2/3 stood recorded in the name of Ashutosh Chakraborty, Nakul Chakraborty and Sahadeb Chakraborty; Khewat No. 2/4 is Ezmal Khewat (Joint Khewatdar) holder No. 2/1, 2/2, 2/3; Khewat No. 2/5 stood recorded in the name of Tribhanga Chakraborty in the last cadastral survey record of rights. Tribhanga Chakraborty, holder of Khewat No. 2/5, purchased the entire estate from the Khewat holder No. 2/3 from Nakul Chakraborty and Sahadeb Chakraborty and wife of late Ashutosh Chakraborty by registered deed No. 217 dated 09.02.1933. Tribhanga Chakraborty had further purchased 1/3rd share in Khewat No. 2/2 from Shyama Charan Chakraborty including lands mentioned in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint by registered deed No. 5159 dated 29.08.1939. The said purchase was made by Tribhanga Chakraborty in plot No. 440 area 0.14 acres in khata No. 9 in plot No. 304, Plot No. 423 area 0.96 acres in Khewat No. 2/4 by registered sale deed 5159 dated 29.08.1939. It was further the case of the plaintiff that Tribhanga Chakraborty remained in possession of entire land of Khewat No. 2/2, 2/3, 2/4 including 2/5 and he died leaving behind his three sons namely Pashupati Chakraborty, Raghupati Chakraborty and Ganapati Chakraborty. At the time of 2025:JHHC:13486 4 vesting of Zamindari Pashupati Chakraborty, Raghupati Chakraborty and Ganapati Chakraborty all sons of Tribhanga Chakraborty submitted returns with regard to their shares to the state of Bihar and accordingly, ‘M’ forms were prepared and rent receipts were issued by the State of Bihar. Subsequently, three brothers and their heirs sold 0.45 acres out of total area 1.60 acres in plot No. 423, Khata No. 18 to Mouza Duhatand P.S. Dhansar to Kailash Singh (plaintiff) by registered deed No. 11643 dated 10.12.1985 for consideration and put the plaintiff in possession of the said property. It was further been pleaded that deed No. 11643 dated 10.12.1985 purchased by the plaintiff was rectified in the year 1986. It was their further case that earlier also 0.54 acres of land was sold to Ramayan Duwedi from plot No. 423 much prior to sale to the plaintiff, Kailash Singh. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was the school teacher and had landed property and fraudulently, filed an application for settlement of schedule ‘A’ property of the plaint before the Circle Officer, who instituted Settlement Case No. 5 (III)/1988-89 and the report was submitted by the Halka Karmachari on 22.10.1990 and on the basis of report the Circle Officer recommended for cancellation of the settlement vide order dated 21.02.1991 and the circle officer recommended the matter to L.R.D.C. Dhanbad. It was the case of the plaintiff after investigation the L.R.D.C. Dhanbad rejected the proposal of settlement in favour of the defendant No. 1 and defendant no.1 preferred a Misc. Review Appeal Case No. 58 of 1991 against the order of L.R.D.C. which was also dismissed and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and was carrying out cultivation. However, subsequently a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was instituted and both the parties had appeared before the authority and the learned S.D.M. made absolute rule against the plaintiff and held that defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit property. The title of the plaintiff had come under cloud. The suit was filed for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession. 2025:JHHC:13486 5 10. So far as defendant No. 1 is concerned, he appeared and contested the suit. It was his specific case that Tribhanga Chakraborty had purchased only intermediary right so far as Khewat No. 2/2 is concerned vide registered deed No. 5159 dated 21.01.1939 as such he acquired raiyati right to possess the land himself and after vesting of Zamindari the land was vested in the State Government and since Tribhanga Chakraborty had possession of only 0.54 decimal of plot No. 423, return was filed by the sons of Tribhanga Chakraborty at the time of vesting vide 'M' form which was accepted and the rest 1.06 acres vested in the State Government. It was the case of the defendant that sons of Tribhanga Chakraborty were not rightful owner of the suit land as such they could not transfer better title to the plaintiff. It was his further case that one Bistu Mahato was illegally possessing the remaining portion of plot no. 423 after vesting and a B.P.L.E proceeding was instituted to remove him from encroachment vide B.P.L.E Case No. 194/23(iii) 75-76 and he was ordered to vacate the suit land vide order dated 08.03.1978. It was his case that had Tribhanga Chakraborty or his sons in possession of the remaining portion of plot no. 423, there was no occasion for the state of Bihar to institute a B.P.L.E case for removal of encroachment of Bistu Mahato. It was further case that after removal of encroachment the State Government settled portion of land to Basni Turin and she was in possession of the suit land and defendant no. 1 was in possession of remaining land and he has constructed house on it. It was his case that the plaintiff by playing fraud in collusion with the officers of the State Government got the settlement case of the defendant dismissed. 11. The learned trial court framed following issues for consideration:- i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the plaintiff has any valid cause of action? iii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, waiver, acquiescence and estoppel? iv. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 2025:JHHC:13486 6 v. Whether the plaintiff has acquired any valid right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of sale deed No. 11643 dated 10.12.1985? vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to any relief or reliefs as claimed? 12. Both oral and documentary evidences were adduced on behalf of the parties, the details of the same are as follows:- Oral Evidences adduced by the plaintiff P.W. 1 Chandreshwar Prasad Singh P.W. 2 Pramod Chakraborty P.W. 3 Surendra Singh P.W. 4 Fatik Chandra Sen P.W. 5 Kailash Singh (plaintiff) P.W. 6 Paresh Chandra Mandal. Documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff Ext. 1 Sale deed no. 11643 dated 10.12.1985 Ext. 2 Sale deed no. 217 dated 01.02.1933. Ext.2/a Sale deed no. 5159 dated 29.08.1939. Ext. 3 Original rectification deed no. 3713 dated 04.04.1986. Ext. 4 Draft notice. Ext.5 to 5/a Postal receipts. Ext. 6 C.C of order passed in Settlement Case No. 5(III) 1988-89. Ext.6/a Certified copy of order passed in Misc. Revenue Appeal No. 58/91. Ext.6/b C.C of order in M.P. Case No. 110/94. Ext.6/c C.C of order passed in Case No. 17942/95 U/s 89 of C.N.T Act. Ext. 6/d C.C of order of Commissioner N.C. Division, Hazaribagh dated 9.7.2002. Ext. 7 Memo No. 3178 dated 09.12.1985. Ext.8 to 8/a Parcha Ext. 9 Letter dated 18.02.1994. Oral Evidences adduced by the defendant D.W. 1 Sudhir Chandra Das D.W. 2 Ashok Das 2025:JHHC:13486 7 D.W. 3 Kashi Das D.W. 4 Dilip Kumar Verma D.W. 5 Jagarnath Ram Documentary evidence produced by the defendant Ext. A C.C of order sheet dated 9.7.2002 of Commissioner, N.C. Division, Hazaribag. Ext. B C.C of order sheet of S.D.M. Dhanbad dated 15.12.1992 in M.P. Case No. 2146/92. Ext. C C.C of order sheet in Settlement Case No. 5(III)/88- 89. Ext. D C.C of order sheet dated 8.3.1978 in B.P.L.E Case No. 194/23(iii)/75-76. Ext. E C.C. of order dated 21.1.1971 in Settlement Case No. 19(iii)/1970-71. Ext. F C.C. of Khewat No. 2/1-2/5. Ext. G C.C. of Khatain No. 18. 13. The learned trial court recorded that it was admitted case of the party that the land Khata No. 18 Mouza Duhatand is Gair Aabad Malik Land as mentioned in C.S Khatiyan and the plot No. 423 which was suit land was part of Khata No. 18 with total area of 1.60 acres. It was also admitted that 0.54 decimal land was purchased by Ramayan Diwedi in the eastern side of the suit land. It was also admitted that the Basini Turin had land on the western portion of the suit land. 14. Issue No. V was the most important issue and the learned trial court after considering the materials, ultimately held that on the principle of preponderance of probability, it cannot be held that the plaintiff acquired any right, title, interest over the suit property by virtue of sale deed No. 11643 dated 10.12.1985 and decided this issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 15. Issue No. (iii) and (iv) were not pressed and hence not decided and ultimately, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. 16. The learned 1st appellate court recorded concurrent findings and decided the same issues as were decided by the learned trial court and ultimately recorded its finding which is as under:- 2025:JHHC:13486 8 “From perusal of deed dated 10.12.1985 by virtue of which sons of Tribhang Chakraborty has sold the land to Kailash Singh, it appears that Tribhang Chakraborty and others were tenure holder of land in Mouza Duhatand. He has intermediary right in the suit land. It further appears in the description of the land that actually khata no. 58 has been stated in the schedule of the deed instead of khata no. 18. No permission was sought from the Deputy Commissioner for selling of land appertaining to khata no. 58, plot no. 423. For execution of rectification deed, no such permission was sought. Rectification deed is Ext. 3. Ext. 6 series are orders passed in Settlement Case against defendant no. 1 where the revenue courts have refused to settle the suit land in his name after the plaintiff had filed an objection and report of Halka Karmachari as Revenue Officer wanted to ascertain whether the land was actual government land or not? From perusal of the orders dated 8.3.1978 passed in B.P.L.E Case No. 2311/1975-76, it appears that for the suit land, B.P.L.E Case was instituted for removal of encroachment of Bistu Mahato and by the impugned order Bistu Mahato was ordered to remove the encroachment. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence available on the record, it is evident that Tribhang Chakraborty had purchased intermediary rights of plot no. 423 and after his death, his son Pasupati Chakraborty had filed return at the time of abolition of Zamindari in 'M' form for fifty four decimals of land out of 1.6 acres of land. He subsequently sold 54 decimals of land to Ramayan Diwedi. It further appears that on the remaining land, Bistu Mahato had encroached upon and vide order passed in B.P.L.E case he was ordered to remove the encroachment and it further appears that after removal encroachment, State Government had settled portion of some land to Basni Turin. It is admitted case of the plaintiff and the defendant that Basni Turin has land adjacent to the suit land. It has also been admitted by the witnesses of the plaintiff that Jagarnath Ram, private defendant no. 1, was in possession of the suit land. Had sons of Tribhang Chakraborty put Kailash Singh, the plaintiff, in possession of the suit land after his purchase, they would have been no occasion for the State Government to get the encroachment removed from Bistu Mahato by instituting B.P.L.E Case and furthermore they would have been no occasion for settling the portion of land of plot no. 423 to Basni Tarni, so it can be safely concluded that Kailash Singh never came in possession of the suit land after purchase from sons of Tribhang Chakraborty. It further appears that permission from the D.C. Dhanbad was obtained for purchase of different land and 2025:JHHC:13486 9 subsequently by rectification deed, it was corrected so as to show that Kailash Singh has purchased the suit land. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that sons of Tribhang Chakraborty had no right and valid title and interest over the suit land to transfer the same to Kailash Singh as such he had no valid right, title over the suit land. As already stated, he is not in possession of the suit land, accordingly this issue is decided against the plaintiff.” 17. So far as exhibit 6 to 6/d is concerned, this Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court in its finding had referring to exhibit 6 series are the orders passed in Settlement Case against defendant no. 1 where the revenue courts refused to settle the suit land in his name after the plaintiff had filed objection and report of Halka Karmachari as Revenue Officer wanted to ascertain whether the land was actual government land or not. 18. From perusal of exhibits it is apparent that exhibit 6 is the certified copy of the order passed in Settlement Case No. 5(iii) of 1988-89 and is dated 06.04.1991. Perusal of the order reveals that defendant No. 1 claimed for settlement but the plaintiff had objected. The perusal of Exhibit 6 further reveals that the authority had ultimately observed by taking into consideration the rival contention of the parties that it is required to be ascertained as to whether the property was fit for settlement and whether the property was government land or not. So far as exhibit C is concerned, the same inter alia contains those proceedings prior to passing of the order of exhibit 6. 19. So far as Exhibit 6/a is concerned, the same is appellate order dated 17.07.1992 against the order dated 06.04.1991 (Exhibit 6). The said appeal was also dismissed by stating that it was premature. The order also reflected that the report of the Anchal Adhikari by itself was incomplete. 20. So far as exhibit 6/b is concerned, it was the proceeding between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in M.P. Case No. 110 of 1994 U/S 144 Cr.P.C and the order dated 05.04.1994 of the said M.P. Case reveals that no clear finding has been recorded there. 2025:JHHC:13486 10 21. So far as Exhibit 6/c is concerned, i.e. the order passed in Case No. 17942/95 U/S 89 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, perusal of which itself reveals that the authority did not come to any final conclusion as title suit was pending between the parties. 22. So far as Exhibit 6/d is concerned, i.e. Copy of the order dated 09.07.2002 passed by the Court of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag in Land Settlement Revision Case No. 71 of 1995 which was again primarily between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and in the said judgment also it was observed that since the title suit is pending in the Civil Court in between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by passing an order in this case 23. Thus, upon perusal of documents which has been exhibited as Exhibit 6 series i.e. Exhibit 6 to Exhibit 6/d, this Court is of the view that concerned authorities who have passed Exhibit 6 series i.e. Exhibit 6 to Exhibit 6/d, they have not given any finding in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, these documents as exhibits has no bearing in the matter. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that Exhibit 6 series having not given any finding in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of either party, the Exhibit 6 series i.e. Exhibit 6 to Exhibit 6/d do not go to the root of the case and the Exhibit 6 series have no bearing in this matter. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents and it is held that non- consideration of Ext.6 series does not go to the root of the case and have no bearing in the case. 25. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 27. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through “FAX/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-