2025:JHHC:28269 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 452 of 2017 Nayalal Besra, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Maheshwar Besra, resident of Village Niche Deoghara, P.O. Mahuda, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad. … … Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff -Versus- 1. Debu Murmu, S/o Late Somai Murmu, resident of Village Sahraya (Tola Bangloghat), P.O. Sabruppur, P.S. Chirki, Dist. Giridih. 2. Mongli Devi W/o Late Banerjee Besra. 3. Sukhlal Besra. 4. Ajay Besra. Both sons of Late Banerjee Besra, both represented through natural guardian their mother Môngli Devi. 5. Fuchi Besra, D/o Late Banerjee Besra, represented through natural guardian her mother Mongli Devi. All resident of village Deoghara, P.O. Mahuda, P.S. Madhuban Dharma Band, District Dhanbad. 6. Barsha Besra, S/o Late Nayan Besra. 7. Dipen Besra, S/o Sarkar Besra. 8. Shivlal Besra, S/o Durjan Besra. 9. Sitaram Besra, S/o Pran Besra. 10. Suren Besra, S/o Sikari Besra. 11. Nunulal Besra, S/o Late Jawa Besra. All resident of Niche Deoghara, P.O. Mohuda, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad. 12. Patal Besra, S/o Late Maheshwar Besra, resident of village Niche Deoghara, P.O. Mahuda, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad. 13. Pawan Besra, S/o Late Maheshwar Besra, resident of Niche Deogharia, P.O. Mahuda, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad. 14. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, PO& PS- Dhanbad, Dist- Dhanbad. … … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 15/15th September 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2025:JHHC:28269 2 2. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.08.2017 (decree signed on 22.08.2017) passed by the learned District Judge- XII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 51 of 2013 whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the Title Appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 30.03.2013 (decree signed on 12.04.2013) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.II, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 128 of 2002. 3. The suit was filed for the following reliefs: - (a) A decree for declaring plaintiff’s and proforma defendant No. 10 and 11’s permanent rayati right over the schedule land on confirmation of their possession. (b) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 to 4 from interfering and causing any obstruction to the plaintiff and the proforma defendants in the suit land. (c) A decree for any other relief or reliefs which may be plaintiff’s be found entitled thereto. (d) A decree for cost of the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad being a necessary party in the case was made defendant no. 12 in the proceedings as the suit property belongs to Schedule Tribe. He has submitted that a written statement was filed by defendant no.12, which is apparent from the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court, but the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner has not been taken into consideration. 5. He has further submitted that the suit was filed for a decree for declaring plaintiffs and proforma defendant no.10 and 11’s permanent raiyati right over the schedule land and confirmation of the possession. He submits that no issue with regard to possession was framed. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, substantial question of law be framed and the 2nd Appeal be decided. He 2025:JHHC:28269 3 has also submitted that the substantial question of law arises for consideration inspite of concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. 6. However, during the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that on behalf of defendant no.12, no witness was examined to support of the statements made in the written statement. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the specific case of the plaintiff was that the suit property measuring total area of 38 decimals, alongwith other land, originally belonged to and was in the possession of Barku Besra, Manjlu Besra, Paika Besra, all sons of late Butan Besra and Karan Besra s/o Raghubansh Besra and Sahile Besra. It was their further case that Barku Besra and others while in possession partitioned the properties including the suit plot immediately after the publication of record of rights. 8. The family partition was held in the year 1930 and according to partition Saheb Besra got 19 decimals of land in plot no. 2369 on the western side and Barku Besra and his brothers got eastern half of the land and Karan Besra relinquished his interest in favour of Barku Besra and his brothers and got other land in lieu of his share in plot no.2369. Thus, Barku Besra and his brothers got absolute half of the total area of 38 decimals i.e. 19 decimals on the eastern side of the plot.The possession of 19 decimals of land on the eastern side of the aforesaid plot was allotted to Majlu Besra while Barku, Manjlu and Paika partitioned their properties amongst themselves in the year 1932. 9. It was the further case of the plaintiff that Majlu Besra died leaving behind his only son Maheshwar Besra who continued to be in possession of 19 decimals of land; Maheshwar Besra died leaving behind his three sons i.e. the plaintiff and defendant no. 10 and 11, namely Patal Besra and Pawan Besra and they were in joint possession of the aforesaid land. It was further case of the plaintiff that 19 decimals of land on the western side were also agreed to be sold by Banerjee Besra (original defendant no. 2025:JHHC:28269 4 3) and Banerjee Besra had received consideration amount from the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession thereof and constructed the boundary wall. 10. It was further case of the plaintiff that after seeing the attitude of Banerjee Besra for non-compliance of the terms of agreement of sale, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against Banerjee Besra being T.S.no. 81/2001. The plaintiff came to know that defendant no.2, Sanjo Devi, in order to disturb the plaintiff and his brothers, executed a collusive deed in the name of defendant no.1, Debu Murmu son of Somai Murmu, who is a stranger and a resident of another village. 11. The sale deed in question i.e. deed no.987 dt. 2.3.2001 was executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 which according to the plaintiff is void and collusive and without consideration. It was the further case that the defendant no.1 had not acquired any title by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed dated 2.3.2001 executed by defendant no.2 Sanjho Devi. It was also stated that the sale deed was hit by the provision of Section 46 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the sanction for sale was also fraudulently obtained.The cause of action for the suit arose on 2.3.2001 at Dhanbad P.S. and Dist. Dhanbad. 12. However, the sale deed dated 02.03.2001 was not specifically challenged in the suit. 13. Defendant no.1 to 4 filed a written statement stating that the suit was mis-conceived and was filed with an ulterior motive and to grab the land purchased by the answering defendants on payment of full and final consideration money. It was further stated that before last cadastral survey settlement, there was an amicable partition amongst the recorded raiyats and they were in peaceful possession of their respective shares and the respective shares was recorded in the remarks coloumn of C.S Khatiyan having no concern to each other. The plot no.2369 measuring an area 38 decimals was in exclusive possession of Saheb Besra and the other 2025:JHHC:28269 5 recorded raiyats had no right, title, interest or possession in any manner in respect of plot no.2369. The defendants denied the statement in the plaint as false and baseless that the recorded raiyats, Barku Besra and others while in possession during their lifetime in the year 1930 partitioned their properties including the suit plot and according to the said partition Saheb Besra got 19 decimals of land in plot no.2369 on the western side and the eastern half of the plot was allotted to Barku Besra and his brothers and to Karan Besra. The defendants stated that the real fact was that the plot no.2369 measuring an area of 38 decimals was in exclusive possession of Saheb Besra and other recorded raiyats had no right, title, interest or possession in respect to the same plot. 14. Defendant no.12 filed a written statement stating that the land under khata no. 20 plot no. 2369 was recorded in the name of Barku Besra s/o Butan Besra and others raiyats and during enquiry the fact of partition could not be establishedas no documents were produced before the Revenue Officer. It was also found that Patan Besra, Pawan Besra, grand- sons of Manjhla Besra after partition were occupying theplot no.2369 area 0.19 acres and it could not be ascertained whether Banarajee Besra and Sanjho Devi had executed any agreement for sale of land to other as agreement deed was not produced and it was admitted position that the partition of share between the heirs of late Barku Besra was done long ago and due to dispute between the parties, the present suit was filed. However, no witness was examined on behalf of defendant no.12 and the inquiry report, if any, was consequently not exhibited before the court concerned. 15. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the present suit? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties? 2025:JHHC:28269 6 3. Whether the suit is under valued? 4. Whether as per family partition effected in the year 1930 Saheb Besra got 19 decimals of land in plot no.2369 on the western side and remaining 19 decimals on the eastern side was allotted to Barku Besra and Karan Besra? 5. Whether Karan Besra relinquished his share in the plot in question in favour of Barku Besra? 6. Whether Banerjee Besra agreed to sale the suit land to the plaintiff and received earnest money from the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession thereof? 7. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendant no.10 & 11 have raiyati right over the suit land? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief? If so, what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 16. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and at first decided issue no. 4 against the plaintiff and rejected the story of family partition claimed by the plaintiff to have been affected in the year 1930,whereby Saheb Besra was said to have got 19 decimals of land in plot no.2369 on the western side and remaining 19 decimals on the eastern side was said to be allotted to Barku Besra and Karan Besra. The learned trial court while deciding issue no. 5 and decided the same against the plaintiff and held that plaintiff failed to prove that Karan Besra relinquished his share in the plot in question in favour of Barku Besra. While deciding issue no 6 the learned court observed that the issue no. 6 was not the subject matter of the present case. While deciding the issue no. 7, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that plaintiff and defendant no. 10 and 11 have raiyati interest over the suit property and decided the same against the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court after considering the materials on record ultimately dismissed the suit. 2025:JHHC:28269 7 17. As per learned 1st Appellate Court’s Judgement, the point for determination was whether the plaintiff has permanent raiyati right over the suit property and it was also to be decided as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to get the relief of confirmation of possession as prayed for or not. 18. The Learned 1stAppellate Court also considered the materials on record and dismissed the appeal after considering the materials on record and held that neither claim of partition was proved, nor claim of relinquishment was proved and held that the suit was also bad for non- joinder of necessary parties as several sharers were not made party to the suit. The learned 1st Appellate Court also observed that the plaintiff had sought relief of declaration of his raiyati right and also that of proforma defendant no.10 and 11 in the suit property and also for confirmation of possession whereas the plaintiff had already made an averment that the sale deed was executed by Sanjho Devi in favour of Debu Murmu but in spite of that plaintiff has not sought any declaration over the said sale deed. The learned 1st Appellate Court thereafter was of the view that the learned trial court had rightly dismissed the suit. 19. Having gone through the impugned judgements, this court finds that the judgements are well reasoned and no perversity as such has been pointed in the matter of appreciation of evidences placed on record. 20. Having gone through the impugned judgments, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case and accordingly this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. Pending, I.A., if any, is closed. 22. Let this order be communicated to the courts concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.09.2025 RKM/-