2025:JHHC:35983 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 80 of 1996 (R) 1. Sunil Tiwary 2. Anil Tiwary 3. Anuj Tiwary All sons of late Ramdhani Tiwary, residents of village Rerma, District: Daltonganj. 4. Champa Tiwary, widow of Late Ramdhani Tiwary, resident of village Rerma, P.S. & District: Daltonganj. 5. Radha Devi, wife of Sri Chintamani Upadhyay, resident of village Rerma, P.S. and District: Daltonganj. 6. Usha Tripathi, wife of Balkrishna Tripathy, resident of Court Road, P.S. and District Daltonganj. 7. Asha Pandey @ Asha Devi, wife of Sri Binod Pandey, resident of village Dalko, P.S. Majhian (Garhwa), District: Daltonganj. … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Peyare Mohan Prasad (Substituted vide order dated 16.08.2022) 1.a Rakesh Kumar, Son of Late Pyare Mohan Prasad 1.b Renuka Srivastava, Wife of Vishwa Prakash Srivastava, D/o: Late Pyare Mohan Prasad 1.c Kiran Bala, Wife of Nalim Kumar Verma, D/o: Late Pyare Mohan Prasad 1.d Madhu Bala, Wife of Mithlesh Kumar Srivastava, D/o: Late Pyare Mohan Prasad 1.e Sandhya Srivastava, Wife of Late Balram Prasad, D/o: Late Pyare Mohan Prasad 1.f Sudha Kumar, D/o: Late Pyare Mohan Prasad 1.g Rajesh Kumar Singh, D/o: Late Pyare Mohan Prasad All resident of Nawatoli, Daltonganj, District:- Palamau 2. Man Mohan Prasad 3. Hari Mohan Prasad 4. Brij Mohan Prasad All sons of late Gaya Prasad 5. Kanak Lal, widow of late Mohan Prasad 6. Anil Kumar Sinha 7. Sunil Kumar Sinha 8. Sushil Kumar Sinha 9. Satish Kumar Sinha All sons of late Lal Mohan Prasad 10. Choli Monee 11. Bari Monee Both minor daughters of late Lal Mohan Prasad, through their mother and guardian Kanak Lal, respondent No.5. All residents of village/Mohalla: Nawatoli, P.S. Daltonganj, District: Palamau ... ... Plaintiffs/Principal Respondents/Respondents 12. Ramudil Tiwary (Substituted vide order dated 09.07.2024) 2025:JHHC:35983 2 12.a Kunta Kunwar, W/o Late Ramudit Tiwari 12.b Manoj Tiwari, S/o Late Ramudit Tiwari 12.c Vinod Tiwari, S/o Late Ramudit Tiwari 12.d Satish Tiwari, S/o Late Ramudit Tiwari 12.e Mithlesh Tiwari, S/o Late Ramudit Tiwari 12.f Shyama Kunwar, Wife of Late Kishun Tiwari 12.g Deepak Tiwari, Son of Late Kishun Tiwari 12.h Vidya Kunwar, Wife of Late Jamuna Tiwari 12.i Deewakar Tiwari, Son of Late Jamuna Tiwari All resident of Village-Redma, P.O. + P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau. 13. Rajeshwar Tiwary (Substituted vide order dated 09.07.2024) 13.a Ramnivas Tiwari, resident of Village-Redma, P.O. + P.S.- Daltonganj, District-Palamau. 14. Kameshwar Tiwary Sons of late Sheo Narayan Tiwary, residents of village Redma, P.S. Daltonganj, District: Palamau 15. Krishna Devi, wife of Medar Nath Sinha, resident of Patliputra Colony, Patna. 16. Lalit Devi, wife of Kailash Bihari, resident of village Sasaram, District Sahabad 17. Kuntal Devi, wife of Gopal Nath Sinha. 18. Matti @ Malti Devi, wife of Ramlakhan Prasad, resident of Bankipur, Patna 19. Manjoo Devi, daughter of late Lal Mohan Prasad, resident of Bankipur, Patna. … … Proforma Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Pradhan Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate --- 25/01.12.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.08.1996 (decree signed on 09.09.1996) passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Palamu in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1987 affirming the judgment dated 14.08.1987 (decree signed on 24.08.1987) passed by learned Subordinate Judge, No.2, Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 86 of 1978. 2025:JHHC:35983 3 3. The learned trial court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and the learned 1st appellate court had affirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this Court. 4. This 2nd appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 25.11.1999 on the following substantial question of law: - “Whether courts below erred in law in ignoring assessment of rent under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the name of defendants-appellants?” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, but the rent having been assessed in favour of the defendants, the findings of title and possession in favour of the plaintiffs could not have been passed. He has submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by both the courts and therefore, the substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (plaintiffs) on the other hand has submitted that both the courts have scrutinized all the materials on record and given findings. The plaintiffs were claiming title on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 22.07.1926 executed by Haridas (settlee) in favour of Gaya Prasad. The settlement in favour of Haridas was followed by issuance of jamindari rent receipts and even in the return, the jamindar had shown the possession of the plaintiffs and merely because the rent was assessed in favour of the defendants the same is not conclusive to decide the title of the parties. He has also submitted both the courts have scrutinized all the materials placed on record and there is no perversity in the matter of appreciation of materials on record even the factum that the rent was assessed in favour of the defendants has also been duly considered by both the courts. The learned counsel submits that the substantial question of law be answered in favour of the respondents. 2025:JHHC:35983 4 7. The learned counsel for the appellants in response has submitted that the right through settlement was only Mokarrir right and the same was not heritable. P.W.7 (One of the plaintiffs) in his deposition has admitted that the right was a Mokarrir right which extinguished in 1955-56. The learned counsel submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered and once the person in whose favour Mokarrir right through settlement expired then the property will revert back to the land lord and filing of return is of no consequence. 8. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that so far as the registered deed of settlement is concerned, it has been specifically mentioned therein that it was a Mokarrir right and heritable right. Findings of this court. 9. The suit was filed for adjudication and declaration that the suit land was the raiyati land of the plaintiffs standing in the name of Lal Mohan Prasad and the plaintiffs were in lawful possession of the same. It was prayed that the possession of the plaintiffs be confirmed and in case the plaintiffs are deemed to be out of possession, the plaintiffs be delivered possession of the suit land through the process of court. 10. As per the plaint, the suit land was recorded as Gair Majarua Malik land under 10P and odd share held by Swember Tiwari. Said Swember Tiwari settled 8 khatas out of 0.48 acres of plot no.733 by a registered deed of settlement dated 28.10.1925 on annual rental of Rs.8/- only in favour of Haridas who was put into possession. Haridas built a kuccha house over the property and got a well dug and enjoyed the property. 11. Haridas (settlee) sold the suit land to Sri Gaya Prasad by registered sale deed dated 22.07.1926 who purchased the same in the name of his minor son namely Lal Mohan Prasad. The purchaser came in possession and made a construction over the property along with boundary wall. The name of the purchaser was also mutated in the 2025:JHHC:35983 5 office of landlord i.e. Swember Tiwari and paid rent to Swember Tiwari and is legal heirs who granted rent receipts. Swember Tiwari died leaving behind his two sons Ram Dhani Tiwari (Defendant No.1) and Sheo Narayan Tiwari (Father of defendant Nos. 2 to 4) and Sheo Narayan Tiwari also died. 12. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the rent of the suit land fell in arrears and consequently, rent suit being Rent Suit No. 506 of 1943 was instituted against the aforesaid Gaya Prasad. The said suit was decreed and the decretal amount was realized from him. 13. After vesting, the landlord filed return under Section 3 B of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and Gaya Prasad was shown as a raiyat, who was in continuous possession and on the basis of entry in the return, the demand for the suit land should have been opened in the name of Gaya Prasad or in the name of Lal Mohan Prasad, but the plaintiffs came to know that at the instance of the defendant who was powerful person, the demand could not be opened. 14. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the Revenue Authorities were requested many times for opening of demand of the suit lands, but there was no response. Ultimately, a petition for fixation of rent was filed by Lal Mohan Prasad before the Circle Officer, Daltonganj, but the same was rejected on the ground that rent of the suit land was already accessed in the names of defendants vide order dated 05.05.1970/28.05.1970 passed in Rev. Misc. 1 of 1970-71. Accordingly, the plaintiffs could know that the defendants got the assessment of rent of the suit land in their favour unlawfully, behind the back of the plaintiffs and others, inspite of the fact that Gaya Prasad was shown as raiyat for the suit land by the defendants in their return filed under Section 3 B of the B.L.R. Act. 15. A petition was filed by Lal Mohan Prasad which was registered as Rev. Misc. VIII/18 of 1970-71 before the Additional Collector, Palamau, who set aside the order of the circle officer with a direction to open demand in the name of Lal Mohan Prasad vide order dated 21.12.1972. The defendants approached the Commissioner against the 2025:JHHC:35983 6 aforesaid order which was registered as Rev. Mutation Appeal 13 of 1972 and the Commissioner vide order dated 02.01.1973 dismissed the appeal. The defendant took up the matter before Board of Revenue which was numbered as Board’s Case No. 103 of 1973. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.12.1975 set aside the orders of the Commissioner Chotanagpur Division and also the order of the Additional Collector, Palamau. As a consequence, assessment of rent in the names of defendants vide order dated 05.05.1970/28.05.1970 passed in Rev. Misc. 1 of 1970-71 survived and ultimately the plaintiffs, the descendants of Gaya Prasad and Lal Mohan Prasad claiming through registered sale deed executed by the Setlee-Haridas filed the suit. It was specific case of the plaintiffs that Gaya Prasad died leaving behind plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and Lal Mohan Prasad and four daughters who were proforma defendant Nos. 5 to 8 and all of them had inherited the properties together. 16. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the contesting defendant connived with the Revenue authorities got the rent of the suit land assessed in their names at the back of the plaintiffs and the order of assessment of rent in favour of defendant was void. 17. The written statement was filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 who opposed the suit on various technical grounds and also on merits. It was asserted that although plot No. 733 an area of 0.48 acres was recorded as Gair Majarua Malik but the fact was that the entire area was used as Khalihan by the ancestor of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as the landlord and was recorded as such during the last survey settlement. The entire plot was also used by the then landlord as his Niksar because adjoining the same, it was the defendant’s ancestral house. 18. It was not admitted that Haridas was ever inducted on the land and there had been no such sale or lease in favour of Haridas and Haridas was never put in possession as alleged. It was false to say that the name of Haridas was ever mutated in the landlord’s sarista. Neither he was ever accepted as a tenant nor he came in possession of 2025:JHHC:35983 7 the suit property. It was also false to say that the plaintiff’s father made any construction over the plot. 19. It was denied that Gaya Prasad had purchased the suit land from Haridas and it was not correct to say that rent receipt was ever granted to Gaya Prasad. It was asserted that Gaya Prasad was not the tenant of the suit property and therefore mentioning his name as tenant was of no consequence rather, it was an act of manipulation. The name of Gaya Prasad was not entered in the demand registered of the revenue office. The allegation that the defendant No. 1 Sri Ramdhani Tiwari was an influential man and that he had influenced the officers was also not correct. It was asserted that the name of Ramdhani Tiwari was shown in the demand register for the suit land in 1955-56 under Bihar Land Reforms Act. 20. It was stated in the written statement that the order of Additional Collector was set aside by the order of Member Board of Revenue as the order of Additional Collector was perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. It was asserted that the final order of Member Board of Revenue in the matter of assessment of rent cannot be questioned in any court of law. It was asserted that the sale by Haridas to Gaya Prasad suffered from want of consideration. It was asserted that since Gaya Prasad was not the owner in possession of the suit property, his legal heirs could not have derived any right and interest. The defendants asserted that the property belonged to them. It was asserted by the defendants that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 themselves partitioned their 48 decimals of plot. There has been partition through circle office. 21. The learned trial court framed as many as 9 issues for consideration:- i. Is the sit maintainable as framed? ii. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action to bring the suit? iii. Is the suit barred by law of Limitation and adverse possession? iv. Is the suit barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? 2025:JHHC:35983 8 v. Has the suit be property valued and Court fee paid is sufficient? vi. Was the suit land settled to Haridas by the ex-landlord, Swember Tiwary, the ancestor of contesting defendants 1 to 4 and did he came in possession over the same? vii. Was the suit land purchased by Gaya Prasad in the name of his minor son Lal Mohan Prasad by registered sale deed dated 22.07.1926 from Haridas, if so did he acquire right, title and interest over the same and did he came in possession over the same? viii. Have the plaintiffs subsisting title over the suit land and are they in possession over the same? ix. To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? 22. Issue No. 6, 7 and 8 are relevant, so far as substantial question of law involved in the present case are concerned. 23. Issue No. 6 was decided by the learned trial court by paragraph 11 onwards. The learned trial court recorded that it was an admitted case of the parties that the suit land is a part of survey plot No. 733 measuring 48 decimals standing recorded as Gair Majarua Malik in the last cadastral survey in the name of Swember Tiwari and having interest to the extent of 10 pie and odd. 24. The learned trial court referred to the registered patta executed by the landlord Swember Tiwari which is dated 28.10.1925 (Exhibit- 5) by which the suit land [8 katha] in the survey plot No. 733 was settled in favour of Haridas on yearly rental of Rs.8/- and he was put in possession. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and ultimately held that registered patta dated 28.10.1925 (Exhibit-5) was a genuine document. 25. Thereafter, the learned court examined the recitals made in registered patta dated 28.10.1925 (Exhibit-5) and observed that the recitals indicated that settlement was for the settlee as well as for his heirs subject to payment of rent, cess from time to time and they were at liberty to cultivate or use the land in whatever manner. The learned trial court was of the view that the recitals made in the registered deed (Exhibit-5) was binding on the parties. The learned court also examined the oral and other documentary evidences placed on record 2025:JHHC:35983 9 and observed that the defendant was incompetent to say that Haridas was not in possession of the suit land. The learned trial court also recorded that Exhibit-6 was the registered sale deed of the year 1926 executed by Haridas and the sale deed executed by Haridas stipulated that he had constructed kutcha house and kutcha well over the suit land and thereafter Haridas expired. 26. Learned trial court gave definite finding in paragraph 13 that the suit land was settled to Haridas and he was put in possession over the same and the said settlement had created hereditary interest too and the issues was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 27. While deciding issue No.7, the learned trial court considered the case of the parties and found that D.W.1 Ramdhani Tiwary (defendant No.1) has admitted in his evidence that he granted rent receipts Exhibit-7(e) and Exhibit-7(f) to Exhibit-7(h) which are all in the name of Gaya Prasad. The learned trial court also recorded that the defendants have also filed certified copy of the jamindari return under Section 3(B) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act which was has been used by the plaintiffs and were marked as Exhibit-9. The learned trial court recorded that this return also shows that the property was in possession of Gaya Prasad and this matched with the case of the plaintiffs that the property was settled to Haridas and then by virtue of registered deed 22.07.1926 (Exhibit-6) the property was purchased by Gaya Prasad in the name of his minor son Lal Mohan Prasad from Haridas. In opinion of learned trial court, the sale deed was of an unimpeachable nature. The learned trial court also recorded that from the side of the defendants there was no evidence to discard the aforesaid documents. The learned trial court recorded that the plaintiffs had also filed the jamindari rent receipts granted by the ex- landlord which was marked in Exhibit-7 series and the defendant No.1 had admitted that rent receipts were granted by him. 28. The learned trial court recorded it was proved that the defendant had recognized Gaya Prasad as a tenant for which rent receipts (Exhibit-7 series) was also issued. The learned trial court further 2025:JHHC:35983 10 considered the oral and documentary evidences and held that there are certain admissions of the contesting defendant in the form of documentary evidences to show that Gaya Prasad was in possession and the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the defendants did not inspire confidence and appears to be unfaithful testimony. 29. The learned trial court ultimately held in paragraph 17 that on careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, there was no hesitation to come to a conclusion that Gaya Prasad had actually purchased the suit land from the settlee Haridas by a registered sale deed and acquired title and also remained in possession till his lifetime. The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 30. Issue No. 3 and 8 were taken up together and it was held that the defendant No.1 failed to dis-possess the plaintiffs and they must be deemed to be in possession of the suit land. The plea of adverse possession of the defendants was also rejected and ultimately the suit was decreed. 31. The learned 1st appellate court also duly considered the materials on record and gave concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal. 32. So far as substantial question of law involved in this case is concerned, the same is relating to only one aspect of the matter i.e. assessment of rent under Section 6 under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the name of the defendants/appellants. 33. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts in connection with the fact that Gaya Prasad had acquired the property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 22.07.1926 (Exhibit-6) from Haridas, who in turn had acquired the property by way of settlement from the ex-landlord by way of registered deed way back on 28.10.2025 (Exhibit-5). Both the courts have also recorded concurrent findings that non-less than the defendants had admitted about issuance of rent receipt with respect to the suit property in the favour of Gaya Prasad. 2025:JHHC:35983 11 34. This Court also finds that both the courts have scrutinized the return filed by the ex-landlord which was exhibited by the plaintiffs as Exhibit-9 and also by the defendants in which Gaya Prasad was shown to be one of the tenant with respect to the suit property. 35. This Court also finds that both the courts have examined the true import of the registered settlement deed dated 28.10.1925 (Exhibit-5) which was executed by the ex-landlord in favour of Haridas and have recorded concurrent findings that it was not only creation of Mokarrir but was also creating hereditary rights in favour of the heirs of Haridas and therefore the right was heritable right. 36. In view of the aforesaid finding of the learned courts that the registered deed dated 28.10.1925 (Exhibit-5), created heritable rights by the ex-landlord in favour of Haridas, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that by the said deed, what was conferred was only Mokarrir right which extinguished upon death of Haridas, is contrary to the recitals of registered deed dated 28.10.1925 (Exhibit-5) and also contrary to the findings recorded by both the courts who have interpreted the Exhibit-5 and found it to have conferred heritable rights. Both the courts have given concurrent findings with respect to possession of Gaya Prasad and the claim of the defendants regarding possession has also been declined. 37. This Court finds that merely because the rent was assessed in favour of the defendants under Bihar land Reforms Act even when the plaintiffs were shown to be in possession in the return filed by the jamindar is not conclusive so far as title of the suit property is concerned. Rather, the learned courts have considered all the materials available on record and come to a definite finding with respect to transfer and conferment of heritable rights in favour of Haridas and then to Gaya Prasad. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Gaya Prasad. 38. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the courts have neither erred in law nor have ignored assessment of rent under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the name of 2025:JHHC:35983 12 defendants-appellants. Rather, the learned courts have taken every aspect of the matter into consideration including the registered patta dated 28.10.1925 (Exhibit-5) which conferred inheritable right to Haridas who in turn sold the property by registered sale deed of the year 1926 (Exhibit-6). The learned courts have considered totality of all the materials placed on record to come to findings. The substantial question of law is accordingly decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 39. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is dismissed. 40. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 41. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/e-mail”. 42. The records of the concerned courts be returned forthwith. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 01.12.2025 Rakesh/- Uploaded On:- 26.02.2026