2025:JHHC:27770 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 118 of 2022 1. Most. Bodhani Devi, aged about 73 years, widow of Late Jitendra Prasad Mehta, 2. Kishori Prasad Mehta, aged about 61 years, 3. Pradip Kumar Mehta, aged about 48 years, 4. Sheo Shankar Mehta, aged about 43 years, all sons of Late Jitendra Prasad Singh, All are residents of Village & PO- Kariyatpur, PS: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh 5. Tuleshwari Devi, aged about 41 years, wife of Santosh Kumar Mehta, daughter of Late Jitendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Barka, PO- Kariyatpur, PS: Ichak, District-Hazaribagh 6. Gunwanti Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Awadh Kishore Mehta, daughter of Late Jitendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Durait, PO-Kariyatpur, PS: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh 7. Dhaneshwar Prasad Mehta, aged about 75 years, son of Late Kheman Mahto, resident of Village & PO- Kariyatpur, PS: Ichak, District-Hazaribagh … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, PO, PS & District - Hazaribagh 2. Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Hazaribagh, PO, PS & District -Hazaribagh 3. Jamuna Devi, wife of Dwarika Mahto, resident of Village Barkakalan, PO: Ratanpur, PS: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh 4. Kamlesh Kumar Mahto, son of Late Bhekhlal Mahto, resident of Village & PO: Kariyatpur, PS: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh 5. Manju Devi, wife of Nand Kishore, resident of Village & PO: Lupung, PS: Katkamsandi, District- Hazaribagh 6. Amrit Prasad Mehta, son of Kheman Mahto, Village & PO: Kariyatpur, PS: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 7. Jai Narayan Mahto, 8. Prabhu Chand Mahto, both sons of Late Babuli Mahto and Anjani Devi, residents of Village- Gunja, PO & PS: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh 9. Bhuneshwari Devi, widow of Late Kanhai Mahto and daughter of Late Kheman Mahto, resident of Village- Chaprakh, PO & PS: Ichak, District- Hazaribagh … … Proforma Defendants/ Proforma Respondents/Proforma Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 2025:JHHC:27770 2 For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I --- 11/11.09.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 31.05.2022 (decree signed on 06.06.2022) passed by learned District Judge-IV, Hazaribag in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 71 of 2019 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 11th September 2019 (decree signed on 24.09.2019) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Hazaribag in Title Suit No. 131 of 2007. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though the plaintiffs have lost in both the courts, still a substantial question of law arises for consideration. He submits that the plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking declaration and confirmation of their title and possession over the suit lands and they had also prayed for permanent injunction against defendant nos. 1 and 2 and in the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of possession if they are found dispossessed from the suit land. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs were claiming the suit property through chain of registered sale-deeds but the immediate vendor of the plaintiffs did not execute any registered deed and there was an oral transfer. He submits that there was a suit between vendor of the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the ancestor of the plaintiffs which was Title Suit No. 828 of 1964 but it ended in a compromise and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the vendor of the plaintiffs’ ancestor was not in a position to dispute the title of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has submitted that the said compromise has not been properly considered by the both the learned courts and on technical grounds, the present suit has been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the suit has also been dismissed on account of not proving the notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that the postal receipt was produced before the court but the notice was not 2025:JHHC:27770 3 produced due to which a finding has been recorded against the plaintiffs. He submits that the production of registry notice was more than sufficient to prove the service of notice under section 80 of CPC and this aspect of the matter has also not been properly considered by the learned courts. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has thereafter submitted that the contesting defendants had relied upon the notification issued under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. He submits that the provision of law and its applicability to the suit property was also not properly considered and therefore also the appeal be admitted for final hearing after framing substantial question of law. 7. This Court finds that the contesting defendants – State filed written statement stating that no notice under sections 79 and 80 of Code of Civil Procedure was served and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. It was also stated on behalf of the contesting defendants that the suit land was recorded as Gairmazarua Khas and the same vested in the State after vesting of Zamindari. It was also asserted that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 828 of 1964 is collusive and the plaintiffs had fraudulently managed certain entry in Register-II in collusion with the Karmchari. 8. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court: “1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Is the suit is barred provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act? 4. Is the suit bad for want of valid notice under section 79/80 of the CPC? 5. Is the suit hit by principles of estoppel and acquiescence? 6. Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties? 7. Whether title of the plaintiffs over the suit land be declared and their possession over the same be confirmed? 8. Whether Khas possession of the suit land be delivered to the plaintiffs if it is found that they have been dispossessed of the suit land? 9. Whether defendant no.1 & 2 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs by way of permanent injunction? 2025:JHHC:27770 4 10. To what other relief or reliefs, plaintiffs are entitled for?” 9. The learned court recorded that the suit between the ancestor of the plaintiffs and his vendor was dismissed on compromise and also referred to the provision of law that transfer of immovable property valued more than Rs. 100/- can be done only by registered document and the oral transfer cannot be recognized by the court. The learned court also recorded that issuance of rent receipt does not confer any title. The learned court further recorded that the exhibit- A series and exhibit-B showed that the suit land was notified as protected forest and the plaintiffs, save and except oral evidences showing the nature of land as Gairmazarua Khas, failed to bring any concrete reliable documentary evidence, which may disprove Exhibit A series and exhibit B proved by defendant nos. 1 and 2. With respect to the compromise , the court recorded that the plaintiffs tried to prove their title relying upon Ext. 2 which is order dated 27.01.1965 whereby Title Suit No. 828/1964 filed by Rango Ram against Kheman Mahto was dismissed on the basis of compromise and compromise petition was treated as part of decree and also Ext. 3 which is decree of dismissal of aforesaid suit and on this basis the plaintiffs tried to show that the competent court of law recognized their title and possession over the suit land. The learned trial court recorded a finding that the stand of plaintiffs cannot be accepted as Exhibits 2 & 3 clearly showed that no finding upon title of the plaintiffs was record by the Court rather the suit was dismissed on compromise. Further Exhibit 3, para 1, showed that the parties were not intending to contest the suit. Even otherwise defendant Nos. 1 & 2 were not parties in that suit and as such Exhibits 2 & 3 are also not binding upon them. 10. The findings of the learned trial court are recorded in paragraph 16 to 23 as under: “16. It is settled law that the plaintiff has the bounden duty to prove his case. Here the plaintiffs are tracing their title throng Kheman Mahto who stated to have purchased the suit land from Rango Ram by oral transfer. The law in regard to sale or transfer of ownership of immovable property valued rupees 2025:JHHC:27770 5 hundred or more is very clear as Section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act requires the same can only be made by a registered instrument. It is also not the case of plaintiffs that the suit property is valued less than Rs. 100/- and more over the evidence (para 6) of PW4/plaintiff No.2 shows that Rago Ram orally sold the land to Kheman Mahto and Parasnath by,taking advance of Rs. 250/- and the suit valuation is fixed at s. 1,10,000/- as such whatever be the actual value of suit land, the evidences clearly show that it was more than Rs. 100/- and thus the same requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act and since the plaintiffs claim of title is based upon oral transfer as such this Court does not think it fit to accept the title of plaintiffs over the suit land on the basis of oral transfer. Even the attempt of plaintiff to substantiate their title over the suit land by relying upon Ext 1 which are rent receipts issued in name of Kheman Mahto is not of any importance as it is also settled law that issuance of rent receipts are not sufficient to confer any title. The plaintiffs also tried to prove their title relying upon Ext. 2 which is order dt. 27/01/1965 whereby T.S. No. 828/1964 filed by Rango Ram agaisnt Kheman Mahto was dismissed on the basis of compromise and compromise petition was treated as part of decree and Ext. 3 which is decree of dismissal of aforesaid suit as they tried to show that the competent court of law recognized their title and possession over the suit land. I find that the stand of plaintiff can not be accepted as Ext. 2 & 3 clearly shows that no finding upon title of the plaintiffs has been record by the Court rather the suit is dismissed on compromise. Further Ext. 3 para 1 shows that the parties are not intending to contest the suit. Even otherwise defendants No. 1 & 2 were not parties in that suit and as such Ext. 2 & 3 are also not binding upon them. Furthermore a transfer which is otherwise took place violating the mandatory provision of law contained u/s 54 of Transfer of Property Act can not be recognized by this court by placing reliance of decree of dismissal passed on compromise. Thus, Ext. 2 & 3 are also not sufficient to confer title and possession of suit land to the plaintiffs. 17. Contrary to the case of plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 & 2 proved Ext. A series and B which shows that the suit land has been notified as protected forest and the plaintiffs save and except oral evidences showing the nature of land as gairmazurwa khas failed to bring any concrete reliable documentary evidence which may disprove Ext. A series & B proved by defendants No. 1 & 2. 2025:JHHC:27770 6 18. Since, the plaintiffs failed to prove the factum of their acquiring title over the suit land from Rango Ram by virtue of oral transfer as such the further case of plaintiff regarding transfer of suit land by registered deed of sale (Ext. 4) to Rango Ram and Dhanakiya by Mossadi Singh and Ram Sewak Singh who in turn got settlement from Ex-landlord becomes insignificant. 19. On the basis of above discussion, I find that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the above issues by leading cogent and reliable evidence in their favour and as such the above issue is decided against the plaintiff. 20. ISSUES NO. 9:- 9. Whether defendant no.1 & 2 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs by way of permanent injunction ? Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit land and as such they are also not entitled for issuance of any permanent injunction. Accordingly, this issue has also been decided against the plaintiffs. 21. ISSUES NO. 8:- 8. Whether Khas possession of the suit land be delivered to the plaintiffs if it is found that they have been dispossessed of the suit land ? The plaintiffs' never took stand of dispossession during trial as such the issue is decided accordingly. 22. ISSUES NO. 4:- 4. Is the suit bad for want of valid notice under section 79/80 of the CPC ? It is specific case of the plaintiffs that notice required u/s 80 of CPC was sent to defendants by registered post with A/D on 25.04.2007 which was received by them on 26.04.2007. In evidence, PW2/plaintiff No. 2 supported this fact and the plaintiffs also proved Ext.5 series which are postal receipts to show that notices were sent by registered post to defendants No. 1 & 2. The case of defendant (para 2 of W.S.) is that the suit is bad for want of valid notice. 23. This issue is one of the vital issues as for want of valid notice no suit shall be instituted against government u/s 80 of CPC. The burden to prove the above issue also lies upon the plaintiff. Though the plaintiffs made specific averment in the plaint regarding the date of issuance of notice and service of notice but the only witness who is PW 4 / plaintiff No.2 failed to 2025:JHHC:27770 7 disclose the specific dates regarding issuance and service of notice upon the defendant No. 1 & 2. Further more the plaintiffs only proved two postal receipts which are Ext. 5 series but the same is not sufficient to show what actually has been sent by those posts. The plaintiffs are bound to prove the actual notices sent to the defendants so that court may be able to see whether mandatory requirement of law has been complied by the plaintiffs in its letter and spirit which plaintiffs failed to do. Even the plaintiffs fail to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove that the notice as allegedly served by them were actually received by defendant No. 1 & 2. Thus, I find that the plaintiffs have failed to bring on record sufficient documentary evidences to prove this issue. Hence, this issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs.” 11. Ultimately, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. 12. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination: (a) Whether the plaintiffs have got full right, title, interest and possession over the suit land described in scheduled ‘B’ of the plaint? (b) Whether the suit is barred under the provision of T.A. No. 71/2019? (c) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the reliefs as claimed for? (d) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is sustainable? 13. All the aforesaid points for determination were decided vide paragraphs 13 to 16 , whose extracts are quoted as follows:- “13. Point No. (a) ……………… In the above referred facts and circumstances, it is admitted between the parties that the suit plot No. 961 under khata No. 1 of Mauza Urukka has been recorded as Gairmajurwa Khas. But it is claimed by the plaintiffs that Ram Sewak Singh and Mossadi Singh had reclaimed the land with permission of the then landlord who settled the same to them but the plaintiffs have not brought Khatiyan of the disputed land by which it can be gathered that what is the total area of plot No. 961 and what were situated over the same and what type of the land was. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not brought Khewat of Mauza Urukka to show and establish the name of the ex- landlord as stated above. It is also obvious that the witnesses have clearly stated that there was settlement made by the landlord in favour of Ram Sewak Singh and Mossadi Singh but even the date and year of the settlement has not been 2025:JHHC:27770 8 mentioned in the plaint. Moreover, from perusal of Ext-4 a registered sale deed dated 28.02.50 in which it is clearly recited that Ram Sewak Singh and Mossadi Singh had acquired the land through settlement. As stated above, the witnesses have also stated that they have seen the document of settlement but the said document has not been filed before the court. It is well settled principle of law that after passing of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, all the lands of land-lord have been vested to the State of Bihar and the landlord has to file his return about the description and possession of the land to the Deputy Commissioner. But it is obvious that the plaintiffs have neither produced the document of settlement and the return submitted by the then land-lord under the provision of BLR Act nor brought any chit of paper showing settlement of the land to Mossadi Singh and Ram Sewak Singh by the then land-lord. It is also obvious that no Register II has been brought on the record by the plaintiffs/appellants. Therefore, basis of the plaintiff/appellants’ claim over the suit land i.e. settlement made by the ex-landlord in favour of Ram Sewak Singh and Mossadi Singh but in absence of the aforesaid documents, claim as stated above cannot be considered as true. Moreover, there is case of the plaintiffs that Kheman Mahto ancestor of the plaintiffs and Performa defendants had purchased the land from Rango Ram for a consideration of Rs.250/- but there is no registered sale deed. It is well settled of principle of law under the provision of Transfer of Property Act as well as the Registration Act, 1908 that any immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or above Rs 100/- it cannot be transferred without registered document. As such, oral transfer by Rango Mahto to Kheman Mahto cannot be considered as valid and genuine. Moreover, claim of the plaintiffs over the suit land is also based on the consent decree passed in Title Suit No. 828/64 (Ext-3) and rent receipts i.e Ext-1 Series. It is peculiar that from perusal of order dated 27.11.65 passed by the then Munsif, Hazaribag in Title Suit 828/64 (Ext. 2) that the suit was dismissed on the basis of compromise and compromise petition was made part of the decree. It is also obvious that neither the State Government nor the Forest Department was party to that suit. As such, the consent decree passed in T.S. No. 828/64 is not binding upon the State Government or Forest Department. So far with regard to the rent receipts is concerned it is well settled principle of law that Mutation of the name of a person with regard to the land or issuance of the rent receipts neither creates nor extinguishes the title. ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………… 2025:JHHC:27770 9 The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in case of Sulochna Devi Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 304 (Jhr.) held that The second contention with regard to having a legal or raiyati right does not survive after abolition of Jamindari and commencement of Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 since the land vested with the Government free from all encumbrances. Upon specific query from the petitioner, no dispute was raised with regard to the admitted fact that the land, in question, was declared as demarcated protected forest land by the Settlement Officer vide letter No. F/XXIV-3046/59-1468 LR dated 18th February, 1960. In the aforesaid background, the claim of the petitioner based on rent receipt, is of no consequence. 14. It is evident from the record of trial court of the present appeal that the defendants no. 1 and 2 have exhibited notification u/s 29 of the forest department of the State Government as Ext. A by which 61.43 acres of land of different plot numbers including the suit plot has been shown as the forest lands. Thereafter, the same has been notified u/s 30 of the Indian Forest Act (Ext-A/1) as protected forest. There is also notification u/s 31 of Indian Forest Act (Ext-B) which shows that aforesaid land has been declared as protected forest under The Indian Forest Act. As such, in the above referred factual matrix of the case as well as well settled principle of law, it is clear that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they or proforma defendants have got any right, title and interest over any portion of the suit land. Therefore, this point is decided against them. 15. Point (b):- No doubt, there is pleading that the plaintiffs have sent legal notice to defendant No. 1 and 2 and in this regard the plaintiffs have exhibited post receipt as Ext-5 and 5/A but any copy of legal notice has not been brought on record to show that the same has been issued through postal receipt Ext- 5 and 5/A in absence of legal notice, it cannot be said that any legal notice has been issued. Mere filing and exhibition of postal receipt before the court cannot prove and establish that the legal notice has been sent in absence of copy of legal notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that legal notice under the provision of section 80 of the code of civil procedure was issued against the defendant No. 1 and 2. Hence, for want of legal notice, the suit is barred u/s 80 of C.P.C. 16. Point No. (c) & (d): In the above referred facts and circumstances, it is obvious that the plaintiffs/appellants along with proforma defendants/respondents have got no 2025:JHHC:27770 10 right, title and interest over the suit land as such, they are not entitled to get any relief in the suit. Moreover, the learned trial court has rightly found and held that the plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest over the suit land and the suit has been dismissed as such there is no illegality in the Judgment dated 11.09.2019 and decree signed on 24.09.2019 passed by Shri Parth Sarthi Ghosh, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Hazaribag in Title Suit No. 131 of 2007. As such, point No. (c) and (d) are hereby decided accordingly.” 14. After recording concurrent findings, the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the appeal. 15. This Court finds that the materials placed on record have been fully discussed and the suit was dismissed and further, the 1st appeal was also dismissed after recording concurrent findings. The plaintiffs did not possess any document of title, the compromise decree was not binding on the defendants and the plaintiffs also could not prove the required notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. 16. This Court finds that the learned courts have duly appreciated the materials on record. No perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is hereby dismissed. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order: 11.09.2025 Date of Uploading: 15.10.2025 Pankaj