( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 70 of 2021 1. Shailendra Sao aged about 50 years son of Horil Sao 2. Horil Sao aged about 78 years son of Late Dhana Sao 3. Ramchandra Sao aged about 45 years son of Horil Sao 4. Devendra Sao aged about 39 years son of Horil Sao All residents of village Lohsinghna, P.O. Jori, P.S. Bashisthnagar, District Chatra 5. Renu Devi aged about 49 years daughter of Late Sitali Devi and Horil Sao, wife of Bhagwan Sao resident of village Raniganj, P.O. and P.S. Imamganj, District Gaya (Bihar) 6. Lalmuni Devi aged about 41 years daughter of Late Sitali Devi and Horil Sao, wife of Jitendra Sao resident of village Bisa Talab, P.O. and P.S. Mufassil, District Gaya (Bihar). 7. Chandmuni Devi aged about 37 years daughter of Late Sitali Devi and Horil Sao, wife of Mungeshwar Sao resident of village Mufassil, P.O. and P.S. Mohanpur, District Gaya, (Bihar) 8. Chameli Devi aged about 35 years daughter of Late Sitali Devi and Horil Sao, wife of Lakhan Sao resident of village Teliyadih, P.O. and P.S. Tandwa, District Chatra … … …Plaintiffs / Respondents / Appellants Versus 1. Sabita Devi wife of Ajay Sao 2. Vijay Sao son of Late Hari Sao 3. Binod Sao son of Late Hari Sao 4. Ajay Sao son of Late Hari Sao 5. Munna Sao son of Late Hari Sao 6. Anil Sao son of Late Hari Sao 7. Kameshwar Mali son of Late Foudi Mali 8. Kouleshwar Mali son of Late Foudi Mali All residents of village Loh Singhna, Pargana Dantar, P.O. Jori, PS. Bashisth Nagar, District Chatra … … Defendants/Appellants / Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Resp. (7 & 8) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate --- 16/30.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. The respondent no. 7 and 8 has entered appearance through caveat and is present in the court. 3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2021 (decree signed on 19.07.2021) passed by the learned ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 2 District Judge VI, Chatra whereby Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2018 has been allowed in part and the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2018 (decree signed on 03.04.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) I, Chatra in Original Suit No. 13 of 2012 has been set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was a compromise before the learned 1st appellate court. The appellant no. 1 to 6 before the learned 1st appellate court were namely Sabita Devi, Vijay Sao, Binod Sao, Ajay Sao, Munna Sao and Anil Sao who entered into compromise and the 1st appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise with respect to the land in Khata No. 6 Khesra No. 180, area 1.04 acres. The compromise petition dated 06.07.2021 was allowed and therefore the appeal was restricted to the other property i.e. Khata No. 40 Khesra No. 185. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the 1st appellate court has allowed the appeal primarily on the basis of cadastral Khatiyan (exhibit- E) which was running in the name of Sohrai Mali, ancestor of defendant nos. 8 and 9 and no further document was produced on behalf of the defendants. The learned counsel has submitted that the Khatiyan was produced by way of additional evidence before the learned 1st appellate court which is apparent from paragraph no. 22 of the 1st appellate court’s judgment. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has not considered the case in totality and primarily the case has been decided on the basis of said Exhibit-E. The learned counsel submits that a substantial question of law be framed and appeal be decided. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants this court finds that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule I & II of the plaint and also sought confirmation of possession and if found dispossessed, for restoration of possession after evicting the defendants. 7. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was owned by one Satyawati @ Savitri Devi who executed general power of attorney in favour of one Dr. Naresh Chandra. Dr. Naresh Chandra executed ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 3 numerous sale deeds as mentioned in the trial court’s judgment including registered sale deed no. 7143 dated 23.12.2008(exhibit-1/d). It is the case of the plaintiffs that that the plaintiff no. 2 Shitali Devi purchased 88 decimals land of khata no. 40 plot no. 185 vide sale deed no. 7143 from Naresh Chandra Singh on the basis of said General Power of Attorney. It was also pleaded that all purchasers came in possession of the suit land and the land was mutated in their names. 8. It was their further case that one Ashok Kumar, who had no right, title and interest over the suit land, and one Hari Sao executed an illegal sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 Smt. Savita Devi with respect to an area of 1.25 acres appertaining to khata no. 6 plot no. 180 area 1.04 decimal and khata no. 51 plot no. 107 area 21 decimal, on the basis of illegal power of attorney alleged to be executed by said Ashok Kumar in favour of Hari Sao with respect to the suit land. Thereafter, the defendants have been illegally claiming right, title, interest and possession with respect to the suit property. The cause of action for the suit arose on 22.03.2012 when the defendants took attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs and ultimately the suit was filed. 9. A joint written statement was filed by defendant nos. 1 to 7 denying the case of the plaintiffs and also denying any cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation and also claimed adverse possession and also claimed that the suit was hit by Specific Relief Act. 10. It was the case of the defendants that Ashok Kumar had got registered power of attorney dated 03.02.1989 from Smt. Satyawati Devi @ Savitri Devi with respect to Khata no. 6 plot no. 180 area 2.04 acres and Khata no. 51 plot no. 107 area 1.21 acres and thereafter Ashok Kumar Singh executed power of attorney dated 05.02.2009 in favour of Hari Sao before the Notary Public, getting permission from Satyawati Devi with respect to the lands in question and, on the basis of this power of attorney, said Hari Sao executed sale deed no. 1321 in favour of Savita Devi for total land of 1.25 acres under khata no. 6 plot no. 180 and khata no. 51 plot no. 107. After purchase, defendant no. 2 ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 4 Savita Devi applied for mutation and her name was mutated and she way paying rent to the government. The plaintiffs had no right, title, interest and possession with respect to the property purchased by defendant no. 2 Savitri Devi. 11. There was another joint written statement of defendant nos. 14 & 15 and it was pleaded that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. It was further pleaded that the land of khata no. 06, plot no. 180, area 2.04 acres was recorded as gair majarua khas land of ex- landlord of village Lohsingna namely Babu Bireshwar Singh. The defendant no. 14 was the settled raiyat of the land measuring area 25 decimals out of 2.04 acres of lands of khata no. 06, plot no. 180, on oral permission of ex-landlord Babu Bireshwar Singh. In sambat 2001, Babu Bireshwar Singh issued hukumnama in favour of Kameshwar Mali for the land measuring area 25 decimals out of 2.04 acres lands of khata no. 06, plot no. 180, and for land measuring area 50 decimals out of 64 decimals lands of khata no. 19, plot no. 172 and accordingly, issued zamindari rent receipts in his favour. The defendant nos. 14 & 15, are own brothers who were in joint cultivating possession of the settled lands and defendant nos. 14 was recognized as raiyats and demand register was opened in his name. They were paying rent to the government and they have also amicably partitioned the suit land. It was also pleaded that Khata No. 40 plot no. 185 of village Lohsingna was recorded in the name of one Sohrai Mali who was grandfather of these defendants and it is continuing in possession of these defendants and that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action. 12. So far as defendant no. 8 to 13, and, 16 to 19 are concerned, they did not appear and the suit was ex-parte against the said defendants. 13. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court which are as under: - “(1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (2) Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action to sue? (3)Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (4)Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder of the necessary parties? (5) Whether the suit is bad due to principle of waiver, estoppel & acquiescence? ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 5 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get declaration of right, title, interest & confirmation of possession on the suit land on the basis of the sale deeds from Naresh Chandra Singh Yadav having power of attorney from Satyawati @ Savitri Devi? (7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get permanent Injunction against the defendants, their men, agents etc.? (8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the cost of the suit or any other reliefs?” 14. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. The learned Trial Court discussed the materials on record and considered the issue nos. 6 and 7 together and observed that in common law, two separate standards of proof are recognized-proof beyond reasonable doubt and proof based on the balance of probabilities and while considering the civil suit, the balance of probabilities is to be considered. The court held that the plaintiffs had successfully established their title and possession over the suit land and they were entitled for declaration of title and ultimately both the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The portion of the Trial Court’s judgment relevant for the purposes of this case is quoted as under: - “ It is well stated that, in common law, two separate standards of proof are recognized proof beyond reasonable doubt and proof based on the balance of probabilities. The former is the standard adopted while dealing with criminal cases while the latter is the standard in use in case of civil suits. In the facts and circumstances of this suit, I am of the view that by adducing sufficient evidence for showing and establishing his title and possession on purchased land/the suit lands, the plaintiffs have succeeded to establish the fact they are entitled to get declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the same. In the facts and circumstances of this suit, as discussed above, I am of the view that the plaintiff has discharged his burden by establishing the fact that they have purchased the lands in question from its real owner, hence, the onus lies upon the contesting defendants to establish the fact that they have purchased lands from its true owner, the lands in question are ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 6 their khatiyani land or their settled lands. In the instant suit, the defendants have not adduced any power of attorney in evidence for showing and establishing the fact that they have purchased the lands in question from true power of attorney holder. The defendants have also not filed any khatiyan as documentary evidence for showing and establishing that the land of khata no. 40 are their khatiyani lands. The defendants have also not filed any reliable documents for showing and establishing that the State had recognised them as raiyat of the 25 decimals lands in question of khata no.6 on the basis of hukumnama of zamindar. It is well settled law that in a suit for possession based on title, once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title.[Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh 2006 0 AIR(SC) 1971] In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have succeeded to established his right, title, interest, and, possession on their purchased lands through sale deed no. 3491, 7141 & 7143, as described in schedule I of the plaint as suit lands, by adducing cogent evidence. Hence, the plaintiffs are also entitled for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants for their purchased lands. Thus, abovesaid issues are decided in favour the plaintiffs and against the contesting defendants.” 15. The issue no. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and issue nos. 3,4, and 5 were recorded as not pressed. Ultimately the suit was decreed on contest against defendant nos. 1 to 7 and 14 to 15 and ex-parte against the remaining defendants. The operative portion of the judgment of the learned Trial Court is quoted as under:- ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 7 “In the result it is hereby ORDERED that the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) on contest against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and, 14 to 15, and ex-pate against the remaining defendants for declaration of right, title, interest, and possession over the purchased lands through sale-deed no. 3491, 7141 & 7143, as described in schedule-I of the plaint as suit-lands. The relief of permanent injunction against the defendants is also granted for the land purchased by the plaintiffs. It is made clear that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest on the land of khata no. 51 plot no. 107 area 21 decimals. Let a decree for right, title, and interest of the plaintiffs against the defendants, be accordingly prepared for the suit land as indicated above.” 16. So far as the learned 1st Appellate Court is concerned, the defendants were the appellants and the sole point for determination was framed in paragraph 14 i.e. “whether the plaintiffs have title and possession over Khata No. 40 Khesra No. 185? This was in view of the fact that with respect to the property in Khata No. 6 Khesra No. 180 area 1.04 acres the learned 1st appellate court had disposed of the matter in terms of compromise. 17. At the 1st appellate court, additional evidence was led and defendant nos. 14 and 15(who were the appellant nos. 7 and 8), by producing khatiyan of land of Khata No. 40 plot no. 185 which was marked exhibit-E and in paragraph 22 of the 1st appellate court’s judgment it has been recorded that the property was running in the name of Sohrai Mali son of Gokul Mali. The learned 1st appellate court also took into consideration that the plaintiffs in their plaint have not stated a single line about defendant nos. 14 and 15 in the trial court and therefore , in the pleading, no case of the plaintiffs was made out with regard to defendant nos. 14 and 15. The learned court also took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff’s witness in his cross examination had stated that in the survey khatiyan, he saw that the khatiyan was recorded in the name of Satyawati Devi although at the 1st ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 8 appellate stage, the khatiyan was exhibited as additional evidence with respect to Khata No. 40 plot no. 185 as exhibit-E, which stood recorded in the name of Sohrai Mali, S/o Gokul Mali. Ultimately, the learned 1st appellate court recorded a finding in paragraph no. 25 and 26 as under: - “25. In this case the plaintiffs in proof of title of his vendor has only produced two rent receipts issued by Ex-landlord and also produced the copy of power of attorney executed by Satyawati Devi in favour of Dr. Naresh Chandra Singh Yadav (Ext.-2), From the perusal of exhibit-2 it is apparent that the same was executed on 19.12.2008 and in the power of attorney neither the description of land has been given nor any source of title has been mentioned. So it is upon the plaintiffs to prove his title with respect to the suit land and when he discharge his onus then burden will be shift upon the defendants. The plaintiffs in his plaint not stated a single line about respondent No 7 & 8 who were defendant Ne. 14 & 15 in the trial court. So in pleading there is no case of plaintiffs regarding these defendants but they were made party in the suit, similarly other purchasers were also made party but no pleading has been given in the plaint. Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has submitted that Satyawati Devi is the admitted owner of the suit land and the source of title of plaintiffs and appellant No. 1 to 6 are same person, hence by filing rent receipt in the name of Satyawati Devi is sufficient to prove her title and as the plaintiffs and appellant No. 1 to 6 enter into compromise and recognize the title of each other, hence there is no dispute remain in existence between them and only point to be decide in this case is only related to the right & title of the plaintiffs over the land of khata No. 40 Khesra No. 185. 26. As1 have already discussed the documents file by the plaintiffs and appellant No. 7 & 8. From the perusal of the documents filed by appellant No. 7 & 8 it is apparent that the cadastral Khatian (Ext- E) of land of khata No. 40 Khesra No. 185 is running in the name of Sohrai Mali ancestor of defendant No. 8 & 9, the plaintiffs ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 9 claiming himself as title holder of land of khata No. 40 Khesra No. 185 and in support of his title he has only produced two rent receipts granted by Ex-landlord and no other proof of title was brought on record by them. Although in his evidence the plaintiff No.-1 has stated that he has seen the return of land of khata No. 40 Kheshra No. 185 in the name of Satyawati Devi, no such document was brought on record by him, although in W.S. the appellant No. 7 & 8 who were defendant No. 14 & 15 also claimed the land of khata No. 6, 19 has settled land but he has not filed any cogent evidence on record to show that the land belong to them. On the consideration of above mentioned fact, it is apparent that the plaintiffs failed to prove his title with respect to land of khata No. 40 plot No. 185 and the Ld. court below has committed error in decreeing the suit with respect to land of khata No. 40 kheshra No. 185, Accordingly this point for determination is decided in favour of appellant No. 7 & 8 and against the plaintiffs.” 18. This court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has considered the materials on record including the pleadings of the respective parties and also the additional evidence which was brought on record at the 1st appellate stage, i.e. exhibit-E whereby the property was found to be recorded in cadastral Khatiyan (ext. E) in the name of Sohrai Mali, son of Gokul Mali, who was admittedly the ancestor of defendant no. 14 and 15. The learned 1st appellate court has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title with respect to khata No. 40 kheshra No. 185 and allowed the 1st appeal partly as the dispute in connection with part of the suit property having distinct description was settled through compromise. 19. The impugned judgment including paragraph 25 and 26 as quoted above is a well-reasoned judgement which has been passed after considering the pleadings, materials on record including the additional evidence adduced at the 1st appellate stage. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the matter of appreciation of pleadings, materials brought on record and ( 2025:JHHC:32642 ) 10 appreciation of the evidence by the 1st appellate court which have been taken into consideration to arrive at the findings. 20. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less , any substantial question of law is involved in this 2nd appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30/10/2025 Binit Uploaded on 12/11/2025