2025: JHHC:30766 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 502 of 2017 Messrs. Chatturam Horilram Private Limited, a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act with its registered working office at Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya (Koderma), District – Hazaribag now Koderma, Jharkhand, through its Directors Shri Sudhir Kumar Bhadani, Krishna Sharan Bhadani and Dayanand Bhadani (Deleted vide order dated 24.07.2024) P.O. Jhumari Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya (Koderma) Dist. Hazaribagh now Koderma … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Maheshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Brijnandan Singh 2. Urmila Devi, wife of Maheshwar Prasad Singh 3. Madan Singh, son of late Brijnandan Singh All residents of village Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. Jhumari Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya (Koderma), District Koderma, previous District Hazaribag … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 14/06.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 29.06.2017 (decree signed on 10.07.2017) passed by learned District Judge II at Koderma in Title Appeal No.17 of 2015 whereby the 1st appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 3. The trial court’s judgement is dated 30.09.2015 (decree signed on 09.10.2015) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) I, Koderma in Title Suit No.59 of 2002 whereby the suit has been dismissed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgements, submitted that the plaintiff is a company and that the suit was filed for a declaration of plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit land, as well as for possession of the suit premises after evicting Defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that Sale Deed No.3771 dated 14.10.1999 and connected Rectification Deed No.3777 of 1999 dated 15.10.1999 were null, void 2025: JHHC:30766 2 and illegal. A decree for mandatory injunction was further prayed for, directing the defendants to demolish the illegal construction made on a portion of the suit land, restraining them from making further construction on the property, and from disturbing or changing the physical features of the suit property. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the cause of action for filing the suit arose against the defendants for the first time in mid- November 2002, when the plaintiff heard a rumour in the locality with respect to the sale of the suit house and land and came to know about some illegal construction. The plaintiff subsequently obtained the certified copies of the sale deed and the rectification deed on 18.11.2002, and lastly, on 15.12.2002, when the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 refused to vacate the suit premises, ignoring the permissive possession or leave and licence granted by the plaintiff company to its former darban, late Brijnandan Singh. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement, but did not file the written statement within the stipulated time and they were debarred from filing written statement. The suit was declared ex parte against Defendant No.3. The name of Defendant No.4 Tara Devi was deleted vide order dated 21.02.2006 due to her demise. The name of defendant no.5 Dropadi Devi was also deleted due to her demise. The proceeding before the learned trial court was under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no specific issue as such was framed by the court. However, the court has dismissed the suit on the point of limitation and also on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned counsel has submitted that the 1st appellate court has dismissed the appeal without properly considering the materials on record and has held that the suit itself was not maintainable. 7. The case of the plaintiff is as under:- a) The suit was filed by the plaintiff, a private limited company, through its directors namely Sudhir Kumar Bhadani, Krishna Sharan Bhadani and Dayanand Bhadani. As per the plaint, the 2025: JHHC:30766 3 plaintiff company had come into existence on 25.01.1927 under its Memorandum and Article of Association. The company was created out of the partnership firm Chatturam Horilram, at Jhumri Telaiya of which Babu Chatturam and Babu Horilram were the partners. It was stated that the partnership firm acquired several properties from landlord Telaiya Raj by hukumnama, which was acquired by the plaintiff company. It was specifically averred that none of the said lands, buildings, factories, etc., including the suit property were from the earnings of Babu Chatturam or Babu Horilram. The properties were never divided between the two partners and were never their individual property nor the properties were parted to anybody else. These properties including the suit property continued to belong to the partnership firm. b) It was the case of the plaintiff that before the formation of the company in 1927 from the partnership firm, the partner, Horilram had four brothers and constituted coparcenary amongst his brothers and father. Horilram died in the year 1926. It was pleaded that Horilram was representing his coparcenary in the partnership firm M/s Chatturam Horilram. Four brothers of Horilram were Darshanram, Kishunchandram, Bandhanram and Jhariram and Horilram had three daughters only and no son. Horilram, therefore, left behind his widow Purni Devi, his father, three brothers, three daughters Kaushaliya Devi, Tara Devi and Draupadi Devi who according to the law then prevailing did not get any share or interest in any coparcenary property including the properties in suit and later the daughters went to their respective Sasurals (in-laws) and the widow of Horilram died in the coparcenary. c) To avoid future disputes, a family arrangement and settlement was made in pursuance of the then Hindu Law of Succession and inheritance by Kunjram, father of Late Horilram, among his surviving sons, in which provision was made for maintenance and marriage expenses of the two unmarried daughters, Tara Devi and Draupadi Devi. However, no immovable property or share in the 2025: JHHC:30766 4 coparcenary lands and houses was given to them. Thereafter, the surviving sons, under the guardianship of their father Kunjram, became the partners of the partnership firm-M/s Chatturam Horilram. In course of time, with the consent of his father and brothers, Darshanram became the Managing Partner of the firm along with Chatturam and they became joint owners of several lands, buildings, factories, and immovable properties including the suit plots—Plot Nos. 3381, 3382 Khata No. 166 and Plot No. 3383 Khata No. 181 (now to new Khata No. 288, Plot Nos. 7567, 7568, and 7569), of village Telaiya Bazar. d) It was further stated that all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm, along with the lands, houses, and immovable properties including the suit land, were transferred to the plaintiff company under certain documents executed in 1927. e) The plaintiff further averred that on the said 10 kathas 4 dhurs of land (Plot Nos. 3381, 3382, and 3383), of cadastral survey khata no.166 and 181 of mouza Telaiya Bazar, kucha houses were constructed and used as staff quarters and store rooms. Several employees of the company such as drivers and watchmen were provided residence therein free of rent. One Brijnandan Singh, father of Defendant No. 1, had been permitted to reside in one of the quarters during his service as a watchman. f) During the minor survey, the aforesaid lands under Cadastral Survey Khata Nos. 166 and 181, Plot Nos. 3381, 3382, and 3383, were renumbered as Plot Nos. 7567 (area 17 decimals), 7568 (area 14 decimals), and 7569 (area 5 decimals) under new Khata No. 288. However, in the revisional survey, the entries were wrongly made in the names of Chatturam, son of Rupanram, and Horilram, son of Kunjram, whereas they ought to have been recorded in the name of the plaintiff company. In spite of such wrong entries, the plaintiff company remained in possession. g) It was further alleged that Defendant Tara Devi (now deceased), daughter of Late Horilram, had no right, title, or authority to sell the disputed lands to Defendant No. 2 and in spite of void sale 2025: JHHC:30766 5 deed, the plaintiff company is in possession without any objection and paying rent regularly. h) The appellant/plaintiff's claimed the relief of declaration of its title and recovery of possession as well as for declaring the sale deed of respondents/defendants as null and void together with mandatory injunction to demolish illegal construction over the suit land. 8. The impugned judgements reveal that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement, but did not file the written statement within the stipulated time and they were debarred from filing written statement. The suit was declared ex parte against Defendant No.3. The name of Defendant No.4 Tara Devi was deleted vide order dated 21.02.2006 due to her demise. The name of defendant no.5, Dropadi Devi, was also deleted due to her demise. The proceeding before the learned trial court was under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The learned trial court posed a question as to whether Sudhir Kumar Bhadani, Krishna Sharan Bhadani and Dayanand Bhadani were the directors of the plaintiff company and whether they had the right to sue. The learned trial court further recorded that during the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.4 expired and a prayer was made to delete her name from the suit. The learned trial court recorded that it was essential to substitute her legal heirs after deleting her name, but the legal heirs were not substituted. Similarly, the name of Dropadi Devi, who was Defendant No.5, has been deleted on the prayer of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff does not claim any relief from Defendant No.5 Draupadi Devi. It was also recorded that Draupadi Devi is daughter of late Horilram and even the 3rd daughter of late Horilram was also not made party in the suit. The descendants of Chatturam were also not made party in the suit although Chatturam was the co-sharer of Khata no.288 as per the record of rights . The learned trial court held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 2025: JHHC:30766 6 10. The learned trial court, after considering the materials on record, was of the view that as per Exhibit 6, a case was filed under Section 87 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, being Case No.1892/77, in which the Khata No.464, Plot Nos.7509 and 7740 were corrected and mentioned in Khata No.290. The court held that this document belonged to the plaintiff and it shall be presumed that in 1977, the plaintiff company had full knowledge of the entry made in the khatian published in 1966 regarding Khata No. 288, Plot Nos. 7568 and 7569 in the name of Chatturam and Horilram. The court further recorded that the claim of the plaintiff company that there was wrong entry in the record of right was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Ultimately, the learned court held that the suit was barred by limitation and was also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 11. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, no specific point was framed in connection with the point of limitation. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination: “(I) Whether the suit as framed was maintainable after following the procedure for institution of the suit on behalf of a Pvt. Ltd. Company? (II) Whether the plaintiff company was able to establish the averments made in the plaint and therefore entitled to get reliefs as claimed in its plaint? (III) Whether the judgement and decree passed by the lower court is liable to be set aside?” 12. The learned 1st appellate court by referring to the document placed on record held in paragraphs 10 and 11 that no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company to authorize the Directors of the Company to institute the suit, nor there was any such power delegated to any of the Directors of the Company to appoint any person to institute the suit on behalf of the Company. The court ultimately held that so-called Directors of the plaintiff company were not entitled to bring a civil suit for any relief as they were not empowered to file a suit on behalf of the plaintiff company and held that the suit itself was not maintainable. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the 2025: JHHC:30766 7 judgement passed by the learned 1st appellate court are quoted as under: “10. In the instant suit also, no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company to authorize the Directors of the Company to institute the suit nor such power who delegate to any of the Directors of the Company to appoint any person to institute suit on behalf of the Company. 11. In such view of the matter, it is quite clear that the so called Directors of the plaintiff company were not entitled to bring a civil suit on any relief as they were not empowered to file a suit on behalf of the plaintiff company. Hence, this point for determination is decided in negative against the appellant.” 13. So far as point for determination nos.II and III are concerned, they were taken up together by the learned 1st appellate court. The learned 1st appellate court referred to the provision of Section 84 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act,1908 and observed that there is a presumption as to the correctness of the final publication of record of rights. It also referred to the judgement passed considering the provisions of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act reported in 1989 BBCJ 296 that every entry made in record of rights is presumed to be correct unless such presumption is rebutted by strong evidence. Section 84 (3) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is quoted as under: “84. Presumptions as to final publication and correctness of record-of-rights. (1)…. (2) …. (3) Every entry in a record-of-rights so published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved, by evidence, to be correct.” 14. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that it was tough to believe that the plaintiff company had no knowledge of the alleged wrong entry in the record of rights in the revisional survey of 1967 where the land was recorded in the joint names of Chattu Ram and Horil Ram and not in the name of the plaintiff company. 15. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the corresponding to C.S. Khata Nos.166 and 181 plot nos.3381, 3382 and 3383 have been recorded in the revisional survey of the year 1967 (Ext. 6) in 2025: JHHC:30766 8 khata no.288 under plot nos.7658 and 7569 and the portion thereof is the suit land. Regarding the acquisition of the aforesaid land of cadastral survey, it has been averred by the plaintiff that the same was acquired through hukumnama and confirmed later on by execution of permanent Mokarrari Dowami building lease, inheritable and transferable, by Tikait Dwarika Narain Singh of Telaiya Raj in favour of the plaintiff company in 1937 (exhibit -7/e). The learned court also recorded that the khatiyan of revisional survey record of rights (Ext.6) disclosed that the entire khata no.288 was having 8 plots including suit plot nos.7568 and 7569 are jointly recorded in the name of Chatturam, son of Rupan Ram and Horilram, son of Kunjram and no individual share of them have been mentioned. It has also been recorded that khata no.289 is exclusively recorded in the name of Chatturam whereas khata no.290 is recorded in the name of Chatturam and Darshanram Pvt. Co. and khata no.291 is recorded in the name of plaintiff company having plot nos.7430, 7443 and 7445. Thereafter the learned 1st appellate court recorded that there is presumption regarding correctness as to final publication of record of rights and as per section 84 of C.N.T. Act and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved, by evidence, to be incorrect. It has been held that since the land of suit khata no.288 (suit khata) and the land of khata no.291 of the revisional survey were recorded in same continued khatiyan, it is very tough to believe that the plaintiff company had no knowledge about the alleged wrong entry in the record of rights in the revisional survey settlement of the year 1967 in the name of Chatturam and Horilram (jointly) and not in the name of plaintiff company. No kacha parcha prepared u/s 83 of the C.N.T. Act and any trace-map of the suit land have been filed by the plaintiff company to show that the suit land which was recorded in the revisional survey settlement in khata no.288 was carved out from its corresponding khata nos.166 and 181 plot nos.3381, 3382 and 3383. The learned 1st appellate court further recorded that the plaintiff has also not filed any mutation documents and rent receipts to show that the State Govt. recognized the possession of the said Company over the suit land at any time. After 2025: JHHC:30766 9 having held as aforesaid, the learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that the Mokarrari Dowami (Ext. 7/e) was executed prior to revisional record of rights and the same is related to land of cadastral survey hence, such registered deed could not be taken as conclusive evidence to show that the suit land was acquired by the plaintiff company. 16. The learned court further recorded that it was averred by the plaintiff that vide indenture (registered family settlement) dated 23.12.1947 (Exhibit 7/b), a specific share was given to the mother of the vendor of the sale deed in question. The learned court recorded that on perusal of exhibit 7/b, it transpired that there was no mention of any land in such family settlement and only movable/liquid property was divided in the family and share was also given to the mother of the vendor of the sale deed in question for her maintenance. 17. The learned court also recorded that it was admitted fact that the husband of the mother of the vendor of the sale deed in question namely Horilram died in 1926 survived by his widow Malti Devi, who was the mother of the vendor of the sale deed. The court recorded that from perusal of the sale deed under challenge Exhibit 7/c, it transpired that the suit land was sold by one of the daughters of said Malti Devi to one Urmila Devi, (Defendant no.2) with the recital that after death of Horilram, the vendor inherited the suit land as his legal heir whereas evidence has been led by the plaintiff company to show that the vendor of the sale deed in question was married prior to coming of commencement of Hindu Succession Act 1956 and also recorded that the sale deed was executed with particular boundary containing house but the record or rights revealed that the suit was jointly recorded in the name of Horilram and Chatturam. 18. 18. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the plaintiff company was not able to adduce sufficient evidence before the trial court to show that the suit land exclusively belonged to the plaintiff company and also recorded that as per the point of determination no.1, the suit was not maintainable, no relief could be granted to the plaintiff. 2025: JHHC:30766 10 19. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the finding recorded by the 1st appellate court calls for formation of any substantial question of law or suffers from any illegality or perversity. 20. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned judgements and is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 22. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 06.10.2025. Saurav/ Uploaded on 17.11.2025