2025:JHHC:34729 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 85 of 2022 1. Sunita Devi @ Sunita Prasad, wife of late Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Lal Prasad 2. Saurav Prasad @ Saurav Lal, son of late Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Lal Prasad Both are residents of Marwari Para Road, Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum. … … Defendants/Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Munga Devi wife of late Parshuram Prasad 2. Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Prasad, son of late Parshuram Prasad 3. Vijay Prasad, son of late Parshuram Prasad 4. Vinay Kumar, son of late Parshuram Prasad 5. Binod Kumar, son of late Parshuram Prasad 6. Pramod Kumar, son of late Parshuram Prasad 7. Ranjeet Kumar, son of late Parshuram Prasad 8. Sanjeet Kumar, son of late Parshuram Prasad All are residents of Chappraya Mohalla, near R.P. Patel High School, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum, State- Jharkhand … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate : Mr. Rajan Kumar Tiwary, Advocate --- 13/20.11.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27th June, 2020 (Decree signed on 07.07.2020) passed by learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No.60 of 2019 whereby the judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 2019 (Decree signed on 26.06.2019) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div)-Cum-J.M.1st Class, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur in Title (E) Suit No. 19 of 2010 has been set aside. 3. The Title (E) Suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment passed by the learned trial court was set aside by the 2025:JHHC:34729 2 learned 1st appellate court by allowing the 1st appeal. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that initially there was only one plaintiff and one defendant. The plaintiff was Sri Parsuram Prasad and the defendant was Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Lal and both the parties have been substituted in the proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit property originally belonged to one Rakhal Sardar who was Sikhmidar (under Raiyati) and he had no right to execute a sale deed to the suit property. The plaintiffs were claiming the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed and the transfer itself was not in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the original plaintiff claimed that the original defendant was a licensee in the suit property although, the original defendant is closely related to the original plaintiff inasmuch as the original defendant was the own nephew of the original plaintiff. He submits that the original defendant was living on the suit property as his own right since birth and therefore, he also had right, title, interest and possession with respect to the suit property and he cannot be termed as a licensee. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial court has recorded a finding that the original defendant was not a licensee while deciding issue No(iii), but that finding has been reversed by the learned 1st appellate court. 8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the suit property was purchased by the father of the original plaintiff in the name of original plaintiff and at that relevant point of time the father of the original plaintiff was an employee of TISCO and therefore, the original plaintiff did not have exclusive right and title with respect to the suit property. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned 1st appellate court while reversing the finding and therefore, the appeal be admitted by framing a substantial question of law. 2025:JHHC:34729 3 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that it was the specific case of the original plaintiff that the original defendant is closely related to the original plaintiff and the original defendant was in dire need of residential accommodation and therefore, the original defendant approached the original plaintiff about 10 years back and on approach, the original plaintiff allowed the original defendant to reside in the suit premises. The original defendant remained in occupation of the suit premises as licensee under the original plaintiff. 10. The cause of action arose when the original plaintiff came to know that the original defendant was illegally and without his consent allowed one Chhatilal to live with the original defendant in the suit premises. Due to the aforesaid act, the original plaintiff desired to discontinue the occupation of the premises by the original defendant who was occupying the premises as a licensee and ultimately a legal notice was issued to the original defendant on 13.01.2010 revoking the license and asking the original defendant to vacate the suit premises and thereafter, when the original defendant did not vacate the suit premises the suit for eviction was filed. 11. It was also asserted that the original defendant on receipt of the notice, left the premises along with Chhatilal keeping the suit premises locked without giving possession to the original plaintiff and was residing elsewhere. Therefore, the original plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree of recovery of possession from the original defendant. 12. It is not in dispute that the original defendant was the own nephew of the original plaintiff. 13. The learned trial court framed as many as 9 issues, but considering the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, the core issues are issue Nos. (III) and (VIII). 14. The finding of the learned trial court in connection with issue No. (III) and (VIII) is at paragraph 15 and 19 which are quoted as under:- 2025:JHHC:34729 4 “15. Issue No. (III): - Whether the defendant is licensee of the plaintiff and is in occupation of the suit property or not? Issue No. (III) is the main issue of this case hence it is taken first for consideration. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction. PW.1 Bhubaneswar Mahato is one of the plaintiff of this case, in his affidavited examination-in-chief he has simply repeated his plaint story. That the defendant is closely related to me and he was in dire need of residential accommodation as such the defendant approached him about 10 years back and on approach made by him out of sympathy I allowed the defendant to reside in the suit premises. The defendant is in occupation of the suit premises as a licensee under him. Recently he came to know that defendant has illegally without my consent allowed one chotelal to live with the defendant in the suit premises. Due to the aforesaid act of the defendant, he does not like to allow the defendant to continue in occupation of the suit premises as licensee under him. He therefore, on 13.01.2010 sent a notice through his lawyer revoking the licence of the defendant and asking the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises by 31.01.2010 but after service of the aforesaid notice, the defendant has not vacated the suit premises nor replied the same, therefore, he has filed this suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises evicting the defendant therefrom. The defendant on receipt of the aforesaid notice, left the suit premises alongwith Chhotelal keeping the suit premises to him and is residing elsewhere. The suit premises belongs to him and he is the owner of the suit premises and the defendant is in occupation of the suit premises as licensee under him and as he has already revoked the license of the defendant, as such, he is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises evicting the defendant therefrom. In para-21, he stated that His brother's name is Masa Sharan Lal @ Bhuneshwar and sister Kamla Devi. In para 23 he denied that the disputed property is his joint property and filed false case. Defendant name is Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Lal son of Late Mata Saran Lal. It is clear that defendant is a close relative of the plaintiff Defendant is the nephew of the plaintiff. It is admitted by the plaintiff that Mata Saran Lal is his brother and Rajesh Prasad father name is Mata Saran Lal. PW 2 state in his evidence that Rajendra Prasad who is nephew, lived for 10-12 years. Plaintiff had filed case against Kamla for vacating the house, which is pending in the court. He has no any proof that defendant has been living for 10-12 years. From the above discussion, it cannot be said that defendant is a licensee of the plaintiff. 2025:JHHC:34729 5 19. Issue No. VIII-Whether the suit is liable to be decree or not? From plaintiff evidence it is clear that suit land is relate to Rakhal Sardar who is Sikmi Dhakhalkar (under Raiyat). AIR 1966 SC 237 AIR 1997 SC 2669 it is held that Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act 1908 Section 4 and 76 under raiyat a Sikmidar is an under raiyat as of right does not acquire any occupancy right in the land held by him under a raiyat in the absence of any custom or usage prevalent in the area in respect thereof- right of under raiyat is neither transferable nor heritable unless there is a custom or usage contrary to that right of an under raiyat survives till his life and it extinguishes on his death. In this case plaintiff namely Parshuram Prasad In para-21, of his cross-examination he stated that His brother's name is Masa Sharan Lal @ Bhuneshwar and sister Kamla Devi. This land is distributed amongst three. In para (19) he stated that he filed a case against his nephew. His sister is also living in the same house. He filed a case against his sister. Other case Title (Eviction) Suit 18/10 filed by the plaintiff against Kamla Devi (plaintiff sister) which is pending in this court. On that record a petition filed by the defendant and submitted that plaintiff namely Parshuram Prasad is died on 14th May 2019. In para (15) plaintiff submitted that he purchased the land from Sikami (under Raiyat) it is held in AIR 1966 SC 237 AIR 1997 SC 2669 it is held that Chota Nagpur Act 1908 Section 4 and 76 under raiyat a Sikmidar is an under raiyat as of right dose not acquire any occupancy right in the land held by him under a raiyat in the absence of any custom or usage prevalent in the area in respect thereof-right of under raiyat is neither transferable nor heritable unless there is a custom or usage contrary to that right of an under raiyat survives till his life and it extinguishes on his death.” 15. The learned 1st appellate court has framed the issues for determination which are quoted as under:- (a) Whether the defendant was a licensee under the plaintiff and (b) Whether upon revocation of the license he was liable to be evicted from the suit premises. 16. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the incidental question to this dominant question was an issue raised whether the 2025:JHHC:34729 6 defendant was a co-owner for the reason that property was acquired by his grandfather Ram Pukar Prasad who died leaving behind two sons and a daughter and his father and the plaintiff were own brothers and therefore, whether he was the legal heir of Ram Pukar Prasad and was occupying the suit premises in that capacity. The other incidental question was with regard to right of the sikmidar raiyat as to whether such sikmidar raiyat was entitled to allow any person to live in the premises as licensee and to evict such licensee from the property. 17. The learned 1st appellate court referred to the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff way back in the year 1968 and also the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff was a benamdar as the purchaser was the father. The learned 1st appellate court considered exhibit-3 which showed that the deed was executed on 30.12.1968 by widow of Hirab Thakur in favour of Parshuram Prasad, the plaintiff. This Sale deed showed that the occupation of the purchaser was shown to be a student but nowhere contained any recital that purchaser was a minor at the relevant time or that father of the purchaser had paid the consideration amount. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that there is a presumption in respect to immovable property and the presumption is that the recorded owner shall be considered to be the real owner and if anybody wants to rebut this presumption, he has to come up with evidence to show that the recorded owner was not the real owner of the property. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that apparently there is nothing on the record to show that purchaser i.e. original plaintiff was a minor on the relevant time and even if the age is taken into consideration, it would transpire that on the date of purchase of the property i.e. 1968, the plaintiff was about 26 years. The plaintiff had retired in the year 2005 and was a TISCO employee and was appointed in the TISCO in the year 1971. 18. The learned 1st appellate court has recorded that there was no evidence on record to show the presumption that the plaintiff was the owner of the property has been rebutted. The court also recorded that the defendant had also asserted that the property was partitioned 2025:JHHC:34729 7 amongst two brothers and sisters, but he failed to come with any evidence much less oral or documentary with respect to the partition as claimed. 19. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that in absence of any evidence to the contrary the court has to conclude that plaintiff was the recorded owner of the property by virtue of the registered sale deed in the year 1968 and merely because the sister or brother was residing in the portion of the property, that cannot lead to a conclusion that the property was a joint family property and ultimately held that the defendant was a licensee under the plaintiff and the plaintiff was the owner of the property and that the defendant was in constructive possession of a portion of the property i.e. one room which was described in the schedule of the plaint by putting lock over the same shall be considered to be a licensee under the same. 20. The learned 1st appellate court held that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned trial court while recording a finding and ultimately reserved the finding of the learned trial court. The learned 1st appellate court also held that there was nothing to show that the defendant was the co-owner of the suit property. 21. With respect to the right of Sikmidar, the learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the property involved in the case was the house and not a raiyati land and was not an agricultural land and held that the right of the plaintiff cannot be diluted simply for the reason that in the remarks column there is an entry of sikmidar and even if such a question would arise it is for the superior landlord to evict the sikmidar or their heirs, but such a plea cannot be taken by a licensee and this question does not have any significance and does not favour the defendant in any manner. 22. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly appreciated the materials on record and has reversed the finding of the learned trial court while holding that the plaintiff had title over the property by virtue of registered sale deed in his name and there was nothing on record to show that either he was minor at the time of 2025:JHHC:34729 8 purchase or that the consideration was paid by his father and not by the plaintiff and that the property was a benami property. The learned 1st appellate court has rightly come to a finding that the right of the plaintiff cannot be diluted simply for the reason that in the remarks column there is an entry of sikmidar and even if such a question would arise it is for the superior landlord to evict the sikmidar or their heirs, but such a plea cannot be taken by a licensee and this question does not have any significance and does not favour the defendant in any manner. The court has also recorded that the suit property was a house and not a raiyati land or agricultural land. The 1st appellate court also recorded that admittedly, the defendant had left the property along with the 3rd person [who entered into the suit property at the instance of the defendant] by keeping the suit property under lock. The learned 1st appellate court allowed the appeal and called upon the defendant to evict the suit property within 3 months. 23. This Court is of the considered view that the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court is a well-reasoned judgement and has been passed taking into consideration every aspect of the matter. No perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned 1st appellate court has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 24. This court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less and any substantial question of law, is involved in this case. 25. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this 2nd appeal which is hereby dismissed. 26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 27. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “FAX/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 20.11.2025 Rakesh/- Uploaded On:-06.02.2026