( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 109 of 2018 1. (a) Lafitab Bibi, aged about 60 years, wife of Late Yadali Ansari (Original sole defendant, now deceased) (deleted vide order dated 20.12.2019) 1(b) Jakir Hussain Ansari, aged about 45 years, 1(c)Wahid Ansari, aged about 43 years 1(d) Adam Ali Ansari, aged about 32 years Nos. 1(b) to 1(d), all are sons of Late Yadali Ansari All are residents of Village Chandra Tola Karkata, P.O. and P.S. Chandankiary, District Bokaro 1(e) Saiman Bibi, aged about 48 years, Daughter of Late Yadali Ansari, resident of Punda, P.O. and P.S.-Purulia, District- Purulia (W.B.) 1(f) Saidan Bibi, aged about 41 years, wife of Hafiz Ansari and daughter of Late Yadali Ansari and daughter of Late Yadali Ansari, resident of Village & P.O.-Bahara, P.S. Para, District-Purulia (W.B.) 1(g) Makulan Bibi, aged about 29 years, wife of Mumtaz Ansari and daughter of Late Yadali Ansari, resident of Village & P.O.-Bahara, P.S.-Para, District-Purulia (W.B.) … …. Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Debnandan Gope 2. Manoj Gope S/o Debanandan Gope 3. Suresh Gope 4. Ganesh Gope 5. Niranjan Gope All sons of Late Bhim Gope (Original Sole plaintiff), residents of village-Chandra, P.O.-Chandra, P.S.-Chandankiary, District-Bokaro 6. Sabitri Devi, wife of Late Bhim Gope of Village Chandra, P.O.-Chandra, P.S.-Chandankiary, District-Bokaro … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, Advocate Ms. Neha Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Baibhav, Advocate --- ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 2 17/24.07.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2017 (decree singed on 01.09.2017) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Civil Court, Bokaro in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016 (decree signed on 14.07.2016) passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) Bokaro, in Title Suit No. 32 of 1994. The Title Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on contest. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts but the proposed substantial questions of law as filed on 30.04.2025 are to be considered in view of the fact that both the judgments are perverse. She has referred to the proposed substantial question of law. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the matter was relating to Exhibit-1, the records of the courts concerned have been called for by this court to peruse Exhibit-1. The learned counsel while referring to exhibit-1 has submitted that the exhibit-1 only refers to the land in Mouza Chandra, Thana No. 193, Khata No. 165, Plot No. 4207 area 19 decimal but does not provide the boundary and the property has been mentioned as Gothwar Baid. The learned counsel has submitted that there are two adjoining properties one is Gothwar baid and other is Senduar Baid in plot No. 4207 each having area of 19 decimal and as per the written statement filed by the defendants the property was wrongly mentioned in the sale deed (Exhibit-1). 5. She has referred to the written statement and has submitted that it was the specific case of the defendants that the property was sold by Beni Mahto in the year 1954 known as Gothwar Baid situated near the house premises of the plaintiffs, though the plot number and khata number of that plot was wrongly mentioned in the deed, in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 3 Supreme Court reported in (2024) 3 SCC 224 (Mary Pushpam versus Telvi Curusumary and Others) paragraph 24 and 25 to submit that suit for possession has to describe the property in question with accuracy and with all the details of measurement and boundary and in absence of such details, the suit for possession cannot be identified and in such circumstances the suit has to be necessarily dismissed. She submits that substantial question of law be framed and decided. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and upon going through the impugned judgments and the records placed, this court finds that as per the specific case of the plaintiffs, the property in Khata No. 165 plot no. 4207 area 19 decimals of Mouza Chandra, Thana No. 153, P.S. Chandankiyari, Dist. Bokaro was described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The said property was recorded in the name of ancestor of Beni Mahto and others and it came in their exclusive possession and while they were in possession, the entire plot was sold to the father of the plaintiff namely Budhu Gope for a consideration through registered sale deed dated 06.07.1954 (exhibit-1) and possession was delivered. Upon perusal of Exhibit-1, it is not in dispute that Exhibit-1 does not mention the boundary of the property, however, it mentions the plot no. 4207 and total area 19 decimal. Schedule-A of the suit property as per plaint is quoted as under: - Schedule-A “Within Mouza Chandra, thana No. 193, Khata No. 165, plot no. 4207, area 19 decimals butted and bounded as:- North: Pucca Road South: Land of Sashi Karmakar East : Babulal Karmakar West: Paddy field of Md. Idrish Ansari” Schedule B 7. Relief prayed for by the plaintiffs in the suit is also quoted as under:- ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 4 “Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of schedule ‘A’ and recovery of possession of schedule ‘B”. 8. The schedule-A has given the boundary of the property though in the sale deed, the boundary has not been mentioned. The relief sought for was confirmation of possession with respect to Schedule-A property and for recovery of Schedule-B property after demolishing the structure made by the defendants in spite of restrained order made under Section 144 of the Cr. P.C. The property to be recovered from the defendants has been mentioned in Schedule-B property. As per the plaint, Schedule B formed a part of the Schedule-A property. 9. So far as defendants are concerned, they have specifically stated in the written statement that Beni Mahato sold the property as Gothwar baid in which the plot number and khata number was wrongly mentioned. It was also their case that the land and the Khata No. 165 was in two pieces of Baid Khet in the nature namely Gothwar Baid and Senduar baid belonging to and was recorded in the name of one Janki Mahto in the last C.S. operation who died leaving behind two sons namely Beni @ Banu Mahato and Chandi Mahato and both sons of Janki Mahto inherited both the land of Gothwara Baid and Senduar baid each measuring an area of 19 decimal. It was also the case that Senduar baid was figured as Plot No. 4207 and Gothwara Baid figured as other than plot no. 4207. 10. It was also the case of the defendants that execution of the sale deed was done in 1954 without the consent and knowledge of the co-sharer namely Chandi Mahto and when it came to knowledge, an objection was raised and ultimately, they entered into compromise and Gothwar Baid was allotted to the share of Beni Mahato and Senduar Baid was allotted to the share of Chandi Mahto. From the perusal of the judgment passed by both the courts, this court finds that no such compromise has been brought on record by either party. ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 5 11. This Court also finds that as many as 11 issues were framed by the learned Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has in particular referred to issue no. X [Whether the situation of land purchased by defendants is at the locality of Sindurwar baid far away from the locality of Gonthwar baid where the plaintiff purchased land?] and has submitted that the same has been wrongly decided by both the courts. It is the specific case during the course of argument that in absence of boundary of the property in Exhibit-1, the suit could not have been decreed. In the midst of the dictation of this order, the learned counsel has also referred to proposed substantial question of law no. (c) as framed in the memo of appeal which is as under: - “(c) Whether the evidence of PW-1 admitting possession of the defendants has been erroneously ignored by both the learned Courts below and thus the same vitiate the impugned Judgment?” 12. The learned court considered the issue nos. I,VI,VII,VIII,X, and XI together and recorded bone of contention between the parties and also summarized the case of the respective parties as under: - “ When I examined these issues, I find that they may safely be parted into four parts i.e. the first part relates to the question of right, title & interest of suit land and for confirmation of possession over schedule-A land recovery of possession of schedule-B land; the Second part is relating to permanent injunction; the Third part is as to locality of two baid lands and the Fourth part is as to the maintainability of the suit. As a matter of convenience, before proceeding further to adjudicate these issues, the Court preferred to refresh itself once again as to the main contentions of both sides, in short. Accordingly, from careful analysis of the pleadings of both sides it appears in one hand apart from other facts that the plaintiffs have claimed for declaration of their right, title, interest & possession over suit land by virtue of Registered sale deed no. 9045 of dated 06.07.1954 executed by the son of recorded tenant Beni @ Banu Mahato in favour of the father of the original plaintiff namely Budhu ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 6 Gope for a consideration of Rs.99/- and delivered exclusive possession to Budhu Gope who after purchase got his name mutated in the ex-landlord seristha and the Budhu Gope and his son also paid rent to State and continued the peaceful possession by growing paddy over. On the other hand, apart from other facts, the main contentions of the defendants are that defendants’ have denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants have claimed their right title and interest by taking specific pleading that it is true that in the year 1954, the Beni Mahato sold his land, known as "Gothwar Baid” situated near the house of the plaintiffs, in favour of Budhu Gope but the plot number and khata number of that land have wrongly been mentioned in the deed and though no boundary of the land has been given in the deed of the Budhu Gope but the defendants claimed that the land of Budhu Gope has been bounded as:- North- Gujar Gorain and Ashutosh Dhiber, South- Krishan Gope, East Gujar Gorain and Jitu Gorain and, West- Ashutosh Dhibar and over this land purchaser/plaintiffs have been coming into possession. Further the defendants have claimed that the suit land was their purchased land from its rightful owner and they pleaded that the lands under khata no.165 more- fully have two pieces of baid khet in the nature, namely Gothwar baid and Senduar baid belonged to and was recorded in the name of one Janki Mahato, in the last C.S. Operation and Janki Mahato died leaving his two sons namely Beni @ Banu Mahato and Chandi Mahato and these both sons of Janki inherited both the lands and both the lands Gothwar baid and Senduwar baid were of 19 decimals each, situated separately at distance of 1000 yards and Senduwar baid was figured as plot no.4207 bounded as North-puca road, South-Land of Shashi Kumar Karmakar, East-Babulal Karmakar and West-land of Md. Idrish. And Gothwar baid was figured other than plot no.4207 bounded as alleged by them and since the transfer of Gothwar baid was done by Beni alone in 1954 so on objection of the son of Chandi, the son of Beni namely Srstidhar transferred ½ of the said Gothwar baid vide sale deed dt.09.06.75. And defendants further pleaded that subsequently when Bandhu Mahato did not get possession of the said ½ of the said land from that earlier purchaser Budhu Gope then the son of Beni and Chandi settled their dispute by way of compromise on the ground that the son of Chandi namely shall get the ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 7 entire area of 19 decimal in Senduwar baid i.e. plot no.4207 and defendants claimed further that during the possession of the said Bandhu and Chandi the northern portion measuring an area of 2 decimals of the said Senduar baid was acquired for the purpose of road and so Bandhu Mahato and Shankar Mahato both sons of Chandi Mahato transferred said 17 decimals of Senduwar baid along with other land to the defendant vide sale deed dt.19.05.80 to the original defendant.” 13. The learned court considered that so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, they had to prove that they have acquired right, title and interest by virtue of registered sale deed No. 9045 dated 06.07.1954 (Ext. 1) and they are entitled for confirmation and recovery of possession over the suit property and considered the various materials on record including the evidence of P.W. 1 who had admitted the possession of the defendants over schedule B property in connection with which recovery of possession was prayed for in the plaint. 14. The learned Trial Court considered the materials and held that the plaintiffs had discharged the initial burden and onus of proof was shifted to the defendants to prove their alleged contention as raised by them in the written statement and in paragraph 20, as many as 5 reasons have been cited by the learned Trial Court to hold that the defendants have not been able to discharge their burden. 1st reason. The learned court held that the defendants had specifically pleaded the different boundary of the land of the plaintiffs and pleaded that wrong entry of Khata No. and plot No. in the registered sale deed dated 9045 dated 06.07.1954 has been mentioned but no such proof was given by the defendants. 2nd reason. The arguments of the defendants that the land purchased by plaintiffs are different land, other than the plot number contained in the registered deed was rejected and the learned court was of the view that there cannot be same plot number under same mouza and under the same Khata number and also recorded that the description of the land was duly recorded in the ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 8 record of rights with respect to the same Khata number and plot number. 3rd reason. The learned court cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh and Others versus Birbal and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 and observed that there is a presumption that the registered document is validly executed. A registered document therefore prima facie would be valid in law and the onus of proof would be on the other person to rebut such presumption. The learned court also recorded that the defendants have completely failed to explain as to how the vendors of the defendants transferred them 17 decimal of land though the vendor no. 1 of the defendant had got only 9 decimal of the land through the deed of the year 1975 and so the deed of the defendant also cannot be said to be a valid one with respect to the suit land by observing that nobody can transfer a better title than what he has. The court also recorded that the defendants have failed to prove their pleadings by adducing any cogent and required evidence to the effect that the son of Beni and Chandi settled their dispute by way of compromise on the ground that the son of Chandi would get the entire area of 19 decimal of plot no. 4207. 4th reason . The defendants’ claim was not reliable as they have also failed to prove the facts as to why in the northern portion measuring an area of 2 decimals of the said Senduar baid land was acquired for the purpose of road because in the boundary as given in record of right (Ext.5) has already shown that in north direction of the suit land there was already a road. 5th reason. The learned court held that the registered sale deed of the plaintiffs was never challenged by the defendants nor they got the deed cancelled. No such suit was filed. 15. The learned court also held that the plaintiffs have got valid right, title and interest over the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed No. 9045 dated 06.07.1954 and was entitled for confirmation of possession over Schedule-A land and also entitled to recovery of possession of schedule-B land after ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 9 demolishing the illegal structure if any, over it and the plaintiffs were entitled for decree of permanent injunction. 16. This Court finds that the learned court was of the view that the registered sale deed No. 9045 dated 06.07.1954 was for an area of 19 decimal in connection with plot No. 4207 and the defendants had failed to prove that it consisted of two pieces of land and there was a compromise in connection with the property. Defendants had also failed to prove that there was a compromise in connection with the property. It was the entire area of 19 decimal which was sold by Exhibit-1 with respect to plot no. 4207. The learned 1st Appellate Court also scrutinized the materials on record and gave concurrent findings upholding the judgement of the learned trial court by observing that the judgement was based on sound and proper reasons. 17. This Court finds that although the boundary of the property was not mentioned in the exhibit-1 but in the Schedule-A of the property, the boundary was mentioned and the entire area of plot no. 4207 was transferred by Exhibit-1. This Court finds that both the courts found no impediment with regard to identity of the suit property (schedule -A and B) and both the courts have rejected the plea of the defendants that the description of the property was wrongly mentioned in Exhibit-1 and the defendants failed to prove their case that they got the property through compromise. 18. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 3 SCC 224 does not help the appellants in any manner as in the said case the suit did not give the details of the property. In the present case, the details of the property with boundary have been mentioned in Schedule-A and schedule-B of the plaint and the argument of the appellants is that the sale deed did not provide the boundary. 19. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts after considering all the materials on record, both oral and documentary, this court finds no perversity or illegality in the matter of appreciation of evidences by both the courts and no ( 2025:JHHC:20349 ) 10 occasion arises for framing any substantial question of law. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 20. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 21. Let this matter be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24/07/2025 Binit