2025:JHHC:36968 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 166 of 2020 Ganesh Saw, aged about 52 years, son of Late Shibu Teli resident of village- Bagiyari, P.O. Tangtona, P.S.- Kasmar, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand). … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Murli Rajwar; 2. Shanichar Rajwar; Both 1 and 2 son of late Dhona Rajwar; 3. Ratni Devi 4. Patni Devi 5. Bilashi Devi 6. Partu Devi All 3 to 6 daughter of late Dhona Rajwar 7. Sugia Devi wife of late Radha Rajwar 8. Mona @ Meena Rajwar son of late Madhuwa Rajwar All resident of village- Bagiyari, P.O. Tangtona, P.S.- Kasmar, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand). … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate : Ms. Maksuda Khatun, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 09/09.12.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2020 (decree signed on 12.02.2020) passed in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2015 by the learned District Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro and also the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2015 (decree signed on 08.06.2015) passed in Title Suit No. 110 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge, Bermo at Tenughat. The Suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed appeal which was also dismissed. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Title Suit was filed in the year 2006 seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession. The learned Senior counsel submits that the judgments of the learned 2025:JHHC:36968 2 courts are perverse and therefore, a substantial question of law is required to be framed. 4. While giving the background of the case, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is claiming the suit property by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 02.02.1968 and the vendor was one Sarju Gosai. Sarju Gosai was the settlee with respect to the suit land by virtue of Hukumnama of the year 1939 and also paid rent to the ex-zamindar and subsequently, upon vesting, he paid rent also to the State. The learned Senior counsel submits that the defendants are the agnates of one Jaduwa Rajwar who was a raiyat. 5. The learned Senior counsel submits that it was the specific case of the plaintiff that Jaduwa Rajwar died issueless long back prior to 1939 and there were arrears of rent. Consequently, the ex-zamindar resumed his land and settled the same by way of Hukumnama to Sarju Gosai – the vendor of the plaintiff in the year 1939. 6. The learned Senior counsel submits that the courts have recorded a finding that the Hukumnama of the year 1939, as claimed by the plaintiff, was doubtful as the plaintiff could not prove that upon death of Jaduwa Rajwar, the ex-landlord had resumed the land and after resumption, settled it to Sarju Gosai through Hukumnama. He submits that since the resumption could not be proved as per the learned court, therefore, the title of the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Sarju Gosai was also held not to have been proved. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that Sada Hukumnama (exhibit-4) coupled with issuance of Zamindari rent receipt has not been properly considered by the learned courts which was sufficient to give a finding in favour of the plaintiff with regard to raiyati right over the property and also continuous possession. He submits that even the State government had recognized the plaintiff as raiyat by issuance of rent receipt. 8. After hearing the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest over schedule-A property and also seeking confirmation of possession. A further prayer was made that if the plaintiff is found 2025:JHHC:36968 3 dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit, in that event Khas possession of the plaintiff be restored by evicting the defendants from the suit property. 9. Specific case of the plaintiff was as under: (i) The land of Khata No. 32 was recorded in the name of Pusha Rajwar, Jaduwa Rajwar, Madhuwa Rajwar and Bishu Rajwar, all sons of Lukhu Rajwar having equal shares. Some dispute arose amongst the co-sharers and ultimately, there was a partition by metes and bounds way back in the year 1921. In the said partition, the property of Khata No. 32 plot no. 1733 with some land of that Khata came in the share of Jaduwa Rajwar. (ii) Jaduwa Rajwar died issueless and his share remained abandoned and nobody was ready to pay the rent to the then landlord so the landlord resumed the entire share of Jaduwa Rajwar under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and came in possession over the same. Later on, Sarju Gosai took oral settlement of the suit land from the then landlord on payment of Salami in Sambat 1995 (equivalent to 1938 A.D.). (iii) Upon confirmation of oral settlement, the landlord granted Hukumnama to Sarju Gosai in Sambat 1996 and started realizing rent from him. The vendor of the plaintiff (Sarju Gosai) remained in possession and after vesting under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Sarju Gosai was recognized as raiyat with respect to the suit land by State of Bihar and Jamabandi was opened in his name and the State issued rent receipt. (iv) Thereafter, Sarju Gosai sold the property vide registered sale- deed dated 02.02.1968 to the father of the plaintiff after receiving consideration amount and put him in Khas possession of the property. It was further case of the plaintiff that upon purchase they remained in peaceful possession and paid rent to the State of Bihar. (v) The plaintiff also claimed that they remained in peaceful possession openly, continuously and adversely with the hostile knowledge of the whole world including the defendants and 2025:JHHC:36968 4 therefore, they have also acquired valid right and title over the suit property which ripened on 02.02.1980. (vi) It was asserted that in the sale-deed, through which the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit land, the brother of Jaduwa Rajwar namely Pusha Rajwar, the nephew namely, Radha Rajwar and Mona Rajwar @ Meena Rajwar, sons of Madhwa Rajwar along with other family members had put their signature/thumb impression as witnesses and therefore, they had admitted the right, title and possession of the vendor of the sale- deed. Hence, they were estopped from disputing the title of the plaintiff. (vii) The cause of action arose when the plaintiff raised objection at the time of preparation of new record-of-rights and the defendants tried to take forcible possession over the suit land on 15.06.2006. Ultimately, the suit was filed. 10. The defendants contested the suit. The name of defendant no. 4 was struck off from the cause-title and three defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. It was asserted in the written statement that there was no cause of action to file the suit and other technical pleas were also raised. 11. It was asserted by the defendants that it was false to say that land of Khata No. 32 was originally recorded in the name of Lakhi Rajwar and it was false to say that the recorded raiyat died leaving behind his four sons who jointly inherited the property. It was also false to say that there was amicable partition by metes and bounds amongst the 4 sons of the recorded raiyat and as per the partition, the Khata No. 32 Plot No. 1733 with some other lands of that Khata came in the share of Jaduwa Rajwar. Further it was denied by the defendants that Jaduwa Rajwar died issueless and his share of land remained abandoned and there was nobody to pay rent to the landlord. It was also denied that under the provisions of CNT Act, the suit property was resumed by the then ex-landlord and later on, the land was settled in favour of Sarju Gosai and he came in possession over the property and that rent was also realized from him. The claim of the plaintiff 2025:JHHC:36968 5 that Sarju Gosai exercised raiyati right over the property was denied. It was also denied that Sarju Gosai sold the property by registered sale-deed to the father of the plaintiff receiving full consideration amount. The fact that other persons had put their thumb impression over the sale-deed as witnesses was also denied. The cause of action as asserted by the plaintiff was categorically denied by the defendants. 12. It was stated in the written statement that the land of Khata No. 4 was recorded in the name of Pusha Rajwar, Jaduwa Rajwar, Madhuwa Rajwar and Bishwa Rajwar, son of Lakhu Rajwar and they were in possession of the same. The recorded raiyat namely, Bishwa Rajwar died issueless and therefore, his property devolved upon his brothers and they came in possession. It was also asserted that the property in Khata No. 32 was partitioned between the recorded tenants namely, Pusha Rajwar, Jadu Rajwar and Madhu Rajwar by metes and bounds and they came in separate possession as per their Takhtas and the land in plot no. 1733 was partitioned in three equal shares and as per the allotment of share, they came in possession over their Takhta. Thereafter, Pusha Rajwar died in the year 1956 leaving behind his only son namely, Dhona Rajwar and 4 daughters and after death of Pusha Rajwar, his son and daughters came in possession over the lands in Khata No. 32 which was allotted to the share of Pusha Rajwar. Similarly, Madhu Rajwar also died leaving behind 2 sons – Radha Rajwar and Nema Rajwar and after the death of Madhu Rajwar, his sons Radha Rajwar and Nema Rajwar came in possession over the land of Khata No. 32 to extent of the share of Madhu Rajwar. Radha Rajwar also died leaving behind two daughters and one widow and they inherited and succeeded the property of Radha Rajwar. Jadu Rajwar died leaving behind his two daughters and after the death of Jadu Rajwar, his daughters inherited and succeeded the properties of Jadu Rajwar. According to the defendants, the aforesaid heirs of Pusha Rajwar, Madhu Rajwar and Jadu Rajwar were necessary parties to the suit and the suit was fit to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. 2025:JHHC:36968 6 13. It was further case of the defendants that the ex-landlord never put his feet over the suit land and had got no right to settle the suit land to Sarju Gosai; Sarju Gosai never entered into the suit property and had no right, title and interest over the same so as to sell the property to the father of the plaintiff vide sale-deed dated 02.02.1968 which never came to light and the sale-deed was never acted upon; the defendants have got no knowledge about the sale-deed. It was the specific case of the defendants that neither the ancestor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff came in possession over the suit land for a moment and the defendants have got right, title and interest over the suit property. It was claimed that the defendants have paid rent to the State of Bihar as well as State of Jharkhand and obtained rent receipts therefrom. 14. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: “(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in present form? (ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit? (iii) Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action in the suit? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has valued the suit as per law? (v) Whether the suit is barred by waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has been dispossessed from suit land? (vii) Whether the plaintiff has acquired the land as per law? (viii) Whether the suit is hit by limitation in the suit? (ix) What are the reliefs which the plaintiff can be awarded?” 15. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences with respect to their claim. 16. The learned trial court held that as per the plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 15.06.2006 when the defendants tried to forcibly take possession of the suit land. The learned court recorded that the plaintiff has claimed that his father purchased the suit land from Sarju Gosai on 02.02.1968 and accordingly, held the suit maintainable. So far as the issue of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party is 2025:JHHC:36968 7 concerned, it was recorded by the learned trial court that the defendants had not led any evidence to that effect and therefore, this issue was also decided by the learned court in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding the issue nos. (iii) and (iv), it was observed that the issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was never pressed before the learned court and the court held that there was valid cause of action to file the suit. 17. While deciding issue no. (vi) and (vii) which were the main issues involved in the case, the learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences and while considering the Hukumnama (exhibit-4), the learned trial court considered the same with the oral evidences led by the parties and ultimately observed that the plaintiff was unable to prove his case. The Court observed that there was only one Zamindari receipt which was filed by the plaintiff which was marked exhibit- 1 and was for 1997 and 1996. It was recorded that the date of taking lagan has been mentioned of the year 1997. The Hukumnama did not talk about any consideration on the basis of which it was issued. The revenue rent receipts which were exhibited by the plaintiff (exhibit-3 to 3/c) were not continuous. The earliest rent receipt which the plaintiff filed was dating back to 18th November 1999 while the alleged sale-deed which was marked exhibit- 2 was of 23.03.1968, so from 1968 till 1999, there was only one Zamindari receipt in the year 1997 while the Zamindari was abolished in the year 1950. From, 1950 to 1999, only one revenue receipt was exhibited by the plaintiff. The learned court ultimately held that this created a doubt upon the case of the plaintiff. It was recorded that the plaintiff failed to prove as to when Zamindar had taken over the land of the share of Jaduwa Rajwar and what was the rent outstanding upon the share of Jaduwa Rajwar before which the re-entry was made. The learned court also considered the recital of the Hukumnama and also the sale-deed and ultimately held that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the entire share of Jaduwa Rajwar was settled in favour of Sarju Gosai by way of Hukumnama. The plaintiff also failed to prove the return of 2025:JHHC:36968 8 Zamindari on termination/abolition of Zamindari. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. 18. The plaintiff filed appeal. The learned 1st appellate court also examined the oral and documentary evidences on record and framed altogether three points for consideration: “(1) Whether the plaintiff has got valid right title and interest over the suit land? (2) Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title over the suit land by Adverse possession? (3) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for filing the suit?” 19. All the points were decided by the learned 1st appellate court against the plaintiff. 20. This Court has gone through the findings recorded by the learned 1st appellate court which recorded clear finding while deciding point no. 1 in paragraphs 32 to 34 as follows: “32. The cumulative effect of all the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff is that the Ext-4, which is source of title of vendor of Ext-2 is not a document having legal credence, as (i) the name of Zamindar is mismatching, (ii) The Ext-1, zamindari rent receipt, marked as 30 years old document does not have any credence, (iii) the mutation document of Sibu Teli, father of the plaintiff, has not been brought on the record. 33. Furthermore, in absence of mutation document and the Ext-2 being executed without valid right, title of suit land. The Ext-3 series, which are rent receipts, do not bear any credence. There is no evidence on record to establish that transfer of suit land from the original tenant Jaduwa Rajwar to the then Zamindar. The plaintiff is bound by the law to prove this gap for proving its case. The plaintiff has to stand on its leg to get decree in his favour. 34. Hence from discussion of documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff/Appellant has not been able to prove his right title, interest over the suit land.” 21. The plea of adverse possession was rejected by the learned 1st appellate court and it was recorded that there was stray plea of adverse possession and the plaintiff never admitted the title of the defendants 2025:JHHC:36968 9 over the suit land, therefore, there was no question of adverse possession. It was also recorded by the learned Court that it was also necessary to prove as to when the title became animus to the owner. The learned 1st appellate court also doubted the cause of action as asserted by the plaintiff. 22. This Court finds that both the learned courts have duly considered the materials on record and have come to concurrent findings. The learned court also recorded that exhibit- 4 (Hukumnama) cannot be treated as a document of transfer of title to Sarju Gosai as it was an unregistered document. With respect to unregistered document, the learned court recorded its findings in paragraphs 19 to 21 as under: “19. The Ext-4 is the unregistered Sada Hukumnama. There is no specific column of malik in Ext-4. It also does not bear any seal of the authority. The Ext-4 was produced in the court by plaintiff (PW-4) of this case. It was marked as Ext-X initially but after impounding it was marked as Ext-4. This document purports to be of 04/06/1939. The PW-4 claimed that it is 30 years old document. 20. Furthermore, from perusal of Ext-4, it appears that it is of the dt. Jeth Badi 4 Roj Sambat 1996. It was executed by Har Narayan Lal. It is not evident what was relation of Har Narayan Lal with the then Landlord. But from para-7 of plaint, it appears that the Ext-4 was executed by the then Zamindar namely Jagdamb Prasad Lal. So there is ring of cloud with regard to execution of the Ext-4. This document has been simply scribed on a white paper. It also does not bear the seal of any authority. 21. The law is no more res-integra on the point of admissibility of unregistered Hukumnama. In a case Mahadeo Oraon vs State of Bihar, it has been reiterated that it is well settled that transfer of land cannot be done by virtue of only a Sada Hukumnama and an unregistered Hukumnama is not admissible and cannot be considered as a deed of gift. So from these exposition the Ext-4 did not transfer any title to the Sarju Gosai.” 23. Further finding has been recorded in paragraph 34 as under: “34. Hence from discussion of documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff/Appellant has not been able to prove his right title, interest over the suit land.” 2025:JHHC:36968 10 24. This Court finds that both the learned courts have recorded concurrent findings and no perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to appreciation of materials on record. 25. There being no substantial question of law involved in this case, this 2nd appeal is dismissed. 26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 27. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through ‘FAX/email’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order: 09.12.2025 Pankaj Date of uploading: 05.01.2026