2025: JHHC: 24172 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI SA No. 67 of 1997 (R) Shree Satya Narayan Jha, son of Late Alkhupan Jha (deleted vide order dt. 11.02.2004) 1. (a) Harendra Nath Jha 1. (b) Birendra Nath Jha Both sons of late Satya Narayan Jha, 1 (c) Urmila Devi, widow of late Satya Narayan Jha 1(d) Shanti Devi 1(e) Sunita Devi 1(f) Renu Devi 1(d) to 1(f) are daughters of late Satya Narayan Jha. All residents of at & P.O. G.T. Road Dumri Thakurbari, P.S. Dumri, District Dumri … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant -Versus- 1. Dukhan Thakur @ Dugan Thakur, S/o Late Haricharan Thakur 2. Kamala Devi, daughter of Late Hari Narain Thakur 3. Chohani Devi, widow of Late Hari Narain Thakur 4. Khubi Thakur, son of Bodhna Thakur (deleted vide order dt. 29.11.2022) 4(a) Bhairo Thakur, S/o Late Khubi Thakur 4(b) Ramchandra Thakur, S/o Late Khubi Thakur 4(c) Nilkanth Thakur, S/o Late Khubi Thakur 4(d) Jitendra Thakur, S/o Late Khubi Thakur 4(e) Manoj Thakur, S/o Late Khubi Thakur All are R/o Choudhary Bandh, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih 5. Hemlal Yadav, son of Late Madho Yadav All by caste Hindu, by profession – cultivators, residents of village Chouddhari Bandh, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih … … Defendants/Appellants/Respondents 6. Kali Charan Jha, son of Late Manikpan Jha (deleted vide order dt. 29.11.2022) 6(a) Chandi Charan Jha, S/o Late Praful Chandra Jha 6(b) Sasthi Charan Jha, S/o Late Praful Chandra Jha 2025: JHHC: 24172 2 6(c) Sandeep Kumar Jha, S/o Late Praful Chandra Jha 6(d) Upendra Nath Jha, S/o Late Kali Charan Jha 6(e) Rajendra Kumar Jha, S/o Late Kali Charan Jha 6(f) Hiralal Jha, S/o Late Kali Charan Jha 6(g) Ramjeet Kumar Jha, S/o Late Kali Charan Jha 6(h) Rahul Kumar Jha, S/o Late Ganesh Kumar Jha 6(i) Binod Kumar Jha, S/o Late Ganesh Kumar Jha All are R/o Choudhary Bandh, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih 7. Sukri Devi, daughter of Hari Narayan Thakur 8. Sukar Thakur, son of Bodhan Thakur (deleted vide order dt. 29.11.2022) 8(a) Gobind Thakur, S/o Late Sukar Thakur, R/o Choudhary Bandh, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih 9. Bhola Thakur, son of Nago Thakur 10. Arjun Thakur, son of late Nago Thakur 11. Sanichar Yadav, son of Madho Yadav All residents of village Choudharu bandh, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridh … … Defendants/Proforma Defendants/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate --- 24/18th August 2025 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.08.1997 (decree signed on 05.09.1997) passed by the learned District Judge, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 33 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1993 passed by the learned Munsif, Giridih in T.S. No. 114 of 1991. 2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 02.03.1998 on the following substantial question of law: - 2025: JHHC: 24172 3 <Whether a Sada Hukumnama in respect of agricultural land coupled with the issue of rent receipt and delivery of possession issued in favour of plaintiff will confer valid right, title and interest?= Arguments of the appellants 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case of the appellants is fully covered by the judgment passed by the Hon9ble Patna High Court (Full Bench) in the case reported in AIR 1968 Pat 302 Ugni and Ors. vs. Chowa Mahto & Others). He submits that even if it has been held that though Sada Hukumnama being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence, but other facts and circumstances of the case are required to be considered to deal with the possession and the rights of the parties. He submits that in the said judgment, the possession and rights of the parties has been duly considered in spite of holding that Hukumnama was inadmissible in the eyes of law. 4. While referring to the facts of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the original plaintiff had produced Hukumnama along with one Zamindari rent receipt issued by the Zamindar who was his father. The learned counsel has submitted that the Hukumnama as well as Zamindari rent receipt were marked Exhibit-2 and 1/a respectively. Exhibit-2 was of the year 2001 samvat which is equivalent to the year 1944 and the rent receipt was of the year 2010 samvat which is equivalent to the year 1953. The learned counsel has also submitted that the based on these documents, the State of Bihar had recognized the plaintiffs/his predecessor in interest as raiyat and issued rent receipt on 15.02.1963 marked as Exhibit-1. 5. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that apart from these two rent receipts, no other rent receipts were produced on behalf of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs continuously remain in possession of the suit property and they still in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court had 2025: JHHC: 24172 4 believed the Hukumnama and the rent receipts contained in Exhibit-2, Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/a and had decreed the suit on contest. 6. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the defendants are concerned, they were claiming the property by virtue of settlement made by the State of Bihar and they claimed to be in continuous possession of the suit property. In support of the settlement, the order-sheet of Land Settlement Case No. 301 of 75-76/101 of 75-76 was produced before the Court. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that the defendants had raised an objection with respect to the identity of the suit property and both the learned courts have held that the suit property claimed by the plaintiffs had a well-defined boundary and such plea was rejected by both the courts. The learned counsel has also submitted that such finding was recorded on the basis of Pleader Commissioner9s Report along with deposition and parvana and in view of the Hukumnama, the Zamindari rent receipts and the rent receipts issued by the State of Bihar and also the fact that the plaintiffs had established the boundary with respect to the property, the plaintiffs had duly proved right, title, interest and possession with respect to the suit property. He submits that in view of the continuous possession of the plaintiffs coupled with the Hukumnama, Zamindari rent receipt and rent receipt issued by the State of Bihar, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants taking into consideration the judgment of Hon9ble Patna High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Ugni (supra). Arguments of the respondents 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has taken into consideration that the original plaintiff was the son of ex- zamidnar and that no zamindari return was exhibited before the court in 2025: JHHC: 24172 5 terms of Bihar Land Reforms Act and the learned 1st appellate court recorded that the property vested in the State of Bihar. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the first rent receipt claimed to have been issued by the State of Bihar i.e. Exhibit-1 is concerned, the same has been disbelieved by the learned 1st appellate court. He has also submitted that so far as the possession of the property is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court has recorded in paragraph 24 that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants is much superior as that of the plaintiff. The learned counsel has also submitted that neither any documents was produced in connection with creation of jamabandi in favour of the appellants nor any document was produced showing continuous payment of rent right from the date of vesting. Rather, only two rent receipts were produced and the rent receipts said to have been issued by the State of Bihar has been disbelieved by the learned 1st appellate court and so far as the Hukumnama is concerned, the same is inadmissible in evidence being an unregistered document. Findings of this Court 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the original plaintiff was claiming the suit property by virtue of Sada Hukumnama (exhibit-2) of the year 1944 executed by his father in his favor and the original plaintiff had produced only one rent receipt issued by ex- zamindar, who was his father, which was issued after expiry of 9 years from the alleged date of Hukumnama ( Exhibit-1/a). Exhibit-2 was of the year 1944 and the rent receipt was of the year 1953. 11. This Court also finds that the appellants claimed that the State of Bihar had also issued rent receipt in his favour in the year 1963 but the learned 1st appellate court has disbelieved the same by observing that the learned trial court wrongly observed that Ext.-1 is the rent receipt dated 15.02.1963 granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the plaintiff with 2025: JHHC: 24172 6 respect to Jamabandi No. 58 for an area of 2.50 acres. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that as a matter of fact there is no case of the plaintiff that any vesting return with respect to the suit land was ever filed or submitted after vesting of zamindari in the State of Bihar. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that the jamabandi was ever opened in favor of the plaintiff and that too bearing No. 58 in the demand register or Register-II. 12. The learned court also took into consideration that plaintiff-Satya Narayan Jha himself did not depose before the court to support his case and at the same time recorded that his son Harendra Nath Jha has deposed as P.W.-1 and he stated that he was deposing as his father was not maintaining good health at the time of his examination and as such he used to make pairvi in the case on behalf of his father . 13. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the father of the original plaintiff was the ex-landlord and therefore the Exibit-2 or 1/a create some doubt and ultimately found that no return was exhibited and it was not the case of the plaintiff that zamindari return was ever filed and the court referred to the provisions of Section 3B (iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and was of the view that the entire land was vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 14. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the settlement made in favour of the defendants was never challenged by the plaintiff before any competent court of law although lots of objection was raised in connection with correctness of settlement so made including the ground that the defendant no. 2 was not a landless lady. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded a finding that the Exhibit-1 had no evidentiary value and decided the case against the plaintiff. 15. So far as the possession is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants was much superior to that of the plaintiff and consequently, the possession was also decided against the plaintiff. This Court finds that no substantial question of law has been framed in connection with any perversity with 2025: JHHC: 24172 7 respect to the appreciation of evidence by the learned 1st appellate court. The law is well-settled that the learned 1st appellate court is the final court of fact and law. The finding in connection with possession has attained finality as no question of law has been framed touching upon the finding of the learned 1st appellate court on the point of possession of the suit property. 16. Considering the nature of substantial question of law framed, this Court finds that the judgment passed by the Hon9ble Patna High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Ugni (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, the learned 1st appellate court disbelieved the Hukumnama and also the zamindari rent receipt and was of the view that the entire property vested in the State and also recorded that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. 17. As held by the Hon9ble Patna High Court (Full Bench) in the case of Ugni (supra), there is no dispute that the unregistered Hukumnama, though inadmissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession and independent of the Hukumnama, the rent receipts themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and the nature of the right of the lessee. Hence, independent of the Hukumnama, the terms of the raiyati settlement were inferable from other pieces of evidence, which in the said case was rightly relied on by the lower appellate court. 18. This Court finds that in the present case, the 1st appellate court has ultimately recorded a finding of fact regarding possession against the appellants. Further this Court also finds that Sada Hukumnama and one zamindari rent receipt (1953) (exhibit-1/a) issued after expiry of 9 years from the date of Hukumnana (1944) (exhibit-2) that too by the father of the plaintiff and another rent receipt said to have been issued by the state of Bihar on 15.02.1963 ( exhibit-1) has been produced by the plaintiff. The said exhibit-1 was discarded by the learned 1st appellate court by observing that the trial court has wrongly observed that Ext. 1 was the rent receipt dated 15.2.63 granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the 2025: JHHC: 24172 8 plaintiff with respect to Zamabandi no. 58 for an area of 2.50 acres. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that as a matter of fact, there was no case of the plaintiff that any vesting return with respect to the suit land was ever filed or submitted after vesting of zamindari in the State of Bihar and that it was also not the case of the plaintiff that zamabandi was opened in favour of the plaintiff and that too bearing no. 58 in the demand register or register II. The learned court observed that Zamabandi no. 58 referred finds mentioned in Ext. 1/a is with regard to khata no.58, to which the suit plot appertains. No further documents were available with the appellants to show his continuous possession over the suit property pursuant to the unregistered Hukumnana (1944). This court is of the considered view that zamindari rent receipt (1953) (exhibit-1/a) issued after expiry of 9 years from the date of Hukumnana (1944) (exhibit-2) that too by the father of the plaintiff ,who was the zamindar, cannot prove continuous possession of the plaintiff pursuant to Hukumnana (1944) (exhibit-2) and hence the judgement passed in the case of Ugni (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In order to claim raiyati interest the possession over the property should be continuous and for that it should be supported by continuous payment of rent and issuance of rent receipts which is not the case here. In the present case the plaintiffs were not found in possession of the property and the possession of the defendants was declared after considering the materials on record. 19. In the case of Ugni (supra), the court has also taken into consideration that the claimant was already in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years, but in the present case, no such finding has been recorded by the learned 1st appellate court in favour of the appellants so far as the possession is concerned. paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under: - <16. For these reasons AIR 1964 Pat 1, on which Mr. Prem Lall relied, will not apply here, in view of the clear finding of 2025: JHHC: 24172 9 the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs came into actual possession of the lands, continued in possession, and paid rent to the landlord and obtained rent receipts for the disputed lands. On these findings, their raiyati interest was established. The possession of the plaintiffs as found was for more than twelve years, and hence, even in the absence of a finding that the plaintiffs were settled raiyats of the village, occupancy rights will accrue to them. Too much importance should not be attached to the somewhat incorrect observations in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the lower appellate court, quoted above, in view of its clear discussion of oral evidence of possession in paragraph 12 and its finding in favour of the plaintiffs. It has also held, disagreeing with the trial Court, that the rent receipts produced by the plaintiffs were in respect of the disputed property. I have already shown that, in the plaint, an alternative case of acquisition of raiyati interest by virtue of possession and acknowledgment of tenancy by acceptance of rent by the landlord was put forward. The unregistered hukumnama, though inadmissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Oral evidence of the terms of the lease will not be admissible; but, independent of the hukumnama, the rent receipts themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and the nature of the right of the lessee. Hence, independent of the hukumnama, the terms of the raiyati settlement were inferable from other pieces of evidence, which were rightly relied on by the lower appellate court. There is no error of law that would justify our interference in second appeal.= 20. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the substantial question of law framed by this Court, when seen in the light of the ratio of the judgment passed in the case of Ugni (supra) applied to the facts of this case, is answered against the appellants. The plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and interest over the property on the basis of the evidences placed on record even when seen in the light of the ratio of Ugni (supra). The fact remains that the learned 1st appellate court did not find the appellant in possession of the suit property and such finding has attained finality. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 2025: JHHC: 24172 10 22. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 23. Let the records received from the concerned courts be immediately sent back. 24. Let this order be communicated to the concerned courts through 8e- mail/FAX9. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.08.2025 Mukul/-