2025:JHHC:10146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 62 of 2021 1. Kallor Kar, son of Late Kanai Kinkar Kar, 61 years, Sex Male, by caste-Hindu 2. Kajal Kumar Kar, son of Late Kanai Kar, aged 58 years, By sex Male, by caste Hindu 3. Smt. Krishna Kar, wife of late Kalyan Kar, aged 55 years, by sex Female, by occupation Housewife All resident of village Pallbagan Mihijam, P.O. and P.S. Mihijam, Sub-Division and District Jamtara … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/ Appellants Versus 1. Arjun Mondal son of Parmananda Mondal 2. Mira Mondal, Daughter of Arjun Mondal 3. Sanjoy Mondal, son of Arjun Mondal 4. Mamta Mondal, wife of Sanjoy Mondal 5. Ashish Mondal, son of Kalipada Mondal All resident of Palbagan, Mihijam, P.O. and P.S. Mihijam, District Jamtara … …Defendants/Respondents/ Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, Advocate --- 10/21.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.09.2020 and decree dated 30.09.2020 passed by the learned Court of District Judge-II, Jamtara, whereby the learned court has dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2018 and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court judgment dismissing the suit vide order dated 28.03.2018 (decree dated 09.04.2018) has been passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) II, Jamtara in Original Suit No. 11 of 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings against the appellants in the two judgments, but a substantial question of law arises in the present case in as much as the learned Trial Court has refused to decree the suit by holding that the land was settled in the name of Arbinda Path Mandir and not in the name of the plaintiff and on this fact alone, the interest of individual in the Arbinda Path Mandir could not be declared. 2025:JHHC:10146 2 4. The learned counsel submits that in the body of the plaint the plaintiffs had declared that they were representing the temple being a member of the Committee and their ancestor was the Secretary of the Committee managing the Mandir. The learned counsel has submitted that this aspect of the matter has neither been considered by the trial court nor by the learned 1st appellate court while confirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this court finds that three individual plaintiffs namely Kalol Kar, Kajal Kumar, Smt. Krishna Kar filed a suit for the following reliefs:- i. “A declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands. ii. That alternatively declaration of the restoration of the possession. iii. A declaration that the defendants have got no concern over the suit lands. iv. A Delivery of possession through the process of the court. v. Any other relief or reliefs decided by the court.” Schedule In the District of Jamtara, Subdivision Jamtara, P.S. Mihijam Notified Area Committee in mouza Mihijam No. 15, A.K.J. No. 128/ka, Plot No. 34/A area 04 decimals, Plot No. 34/B area 06 decimals, total 10 decimals of lands as per trace map shown in red colour inS.D.O.’s Rev. Misc. Case No. 81/57- 58. 6. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that the Arbinda Path Mandir was duly registered in the name of Arbinda Path Mandir name by the government Authority and plaintiffs’ father namely Kanai Kinkar Kar through the process of court by Court Amin on 30.04.1993 in L.A. Case No. 22 of 1962/63, in presence of the witness, got his name mutated by paying rent and came in peaceful possession and the plaintiffs were one of the members of Arbinda Path Mandir. It was their further case that defendants have no concern with the said property and they formed a group in the village and tried to forcibly occupy the said land and the tree standing thereupon. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara and it was given in writing by the defendant No. 2 that he will 2025:JHHC:10146 3 leave the land without any objection but he tried to claim title over the property and criminal miscellaneous Case No. 54 of 2011 was instituted and the both the parties were directed to file show cause. However, the SDM Jamtara illegally dropped the proceeding by making an observation that Defendant No. 1 to 5 were in peaceful possession of the land and also directed to move to permanently settle the dispute through a competent court of law. The defendant no. 1 to 5 claimed that the land of Arbinda Path Mandir cannot be transferred in any way. 7. The defendants appeared and file a written statement stating that the suit was not maintainable and barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and that the plaintiffs have no local standi to file the suit. It was their case that one Sabur Bauri had applied for settlement of a portion of the land and consequently it was settled to Arbinda Path Mandir and Kalyan Kar, one of the plaintiffs, was the Secretary of said Mandir through a written agreement dated 08.07.1996 and he allotted more or less two decimal of land in favour of Arjun Mondal who was appointed as ‘Sebayat cum care taker’ of Arbinda Path Mandir, Mihijam. In the agreement it was agreed that defendant Arjun Mondal will prepare pucca house over the settled portion of the land and live there so long as he desire. The assertion of the plaintiffs that they have got right, title, interest over the portion of the land was totally denied by the defendants and even the cause of action for filing the suit was denied by stating that the order of the SDM Jamtara was set aside by the Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 34 of 2011 vide order dated 01.06.2011. 8. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues which is as under:- “ (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is there any valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by the law of limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (iv) Has the plaintiff got any valid right, title and interest coupled with possession over the suit land? (v) Is the agreement dated 08.07.1996 a valid document? (vi) Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? 2025:JHHC:10146 4 9. The Trial Court recorded the evidences. The issue nos. (iv) and (v) were taken up and the learned Trial Court ultimately recorded a finding that the land is settled in the name of Arbinda Path Mandir and father of the plaintiff was Secretary and rent was being paid by the plaintiff and by his father and the mutation does not affect the Title. It was also observed that the land settled in the name of Arbinda Path Mandir and in no case the suit land can be said to be settled in the specific name of any person and the property is not inheritable by the heirs and successors of the Secretary. The finding of the learned Trial Court is at paragraph 8 of the Trial Courts judgment which is as under:- “Perused the case record, heard the argument and from the evidence as discussed above as well as after going through the exhibit, I find that the land is settled in the name of Path Mandir and father of plaintiff was secretary and rent is being paid by the plaintiff or his father and mutation do not effect the title. The land settled in the name of Path Mandir, in no case the suit land is said to be settled in the specific name of any person and the property is not inheritable by the heirs and successors of the secretary. This is admitted fact that the lands belong to Path Mandir. Considering the sole fact right, title and interest of individual in the path Mandir cannot be declared. Hence, 1 find and hold that plaintiffs have got no any title over the suit land. As far as agreement date 06.07.1996 is concerned it is also held that this is not a valid document. Accordingly, both these issue No.(iv) and (v) is decided.” 10. The Trial Court ultimately held that the plaintiffs do not have any title over the suit land and even the agreement dated 06.07.1996 relied upon by the defendants was held to be not a valid document. 11. The Appellate Court also considered the materials on record and the point of determination has been mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Appellate Court’s judgment and ultimately recorded that it was an admitted fact that the land in dispute is settled in the name of Arbinda Path Mandir but the plaintiffs appellants are claiming the suit land and praying for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land in personal capacity but have not proved as to how they got 2025:JHHC:10146 5 right, title and interest in the suit property. The learned Appellate Court also recorded that it is an admitted fact that the record of land is settled in the name of Arbinda Path Mandir and held that in no circumstances the suit land can be claimed in the specific name of any person and the suit property is not inheritable as it belongs to the temple. 12. This court finds that admittedly the suit was filed by the aforesaid three plaintiffs in their individual capacity and relief was claimed seeking declaration of their title over the suit property. Neither the cause title nor the relief nor the plaint revealed that the plaintiffs were representing the temple in any manner. This court further finds that both the courts have given concurrent findings with regard to the fact that right, title and interest cannot be decided in favour of the plaintiffs who filed suit in the individual capacity and even the agreement dated 06.07.1996 by which it was claimed that defendant no.1 was appointed as ‘sebayet cum care taker’ of the temple relied upon by the defendants was held to be not a valid document. 13. Both the courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have given concurrent findings. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the matter of appreciation of the materials on record. The counsel for the appellants has not been able to satisfy this court that any question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the present case, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 15. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)