2026:JHHC:15279 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 442 of 2003 1. (i) Sheo Prasad (ii) Om Prakash Bansal, Both sons of late Parmanand Pd. Agrawal, residents of Arhat Road P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau (Jharkhand) … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. (i) Prema Devi, wife of late Ramkesh Mahto (ii) Nand Lal Mahto, son of late Ramkesh Mahto Both residents of Bypass Road, Sudna P.S. Daltonganj District : Palamau (iii) Krishna Lal Mahto, son of late Ramkesh Mahto, village: Darudih, P.O., P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau (iv) Manju Devi wife of Sri Suryadeo Mahto, daughter of late Ramkesh Mahto, resident of village: Lohada P.S. Sangbar, P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau (Abated v.o.d. 16.12.2025) (v) Shakuntala Devi, wife of Sri Chandrika Mahto, daughter of late Ramkesh Mahto, resident of village: P.O. Sudna, P.S. Daltonganj, District : Palamau 2. Sureshwar Mahto, son of Bishwanath Mahto, resident of village – Sudna, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District – Palamau … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate --- CAV on 09.02.2026 Pronounced on 15.05.2026 This appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 13.06.2003 (decree signed on 25.06.2003) passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Palamau, dismissing the Title Appeal No.5 of 1995 and confirming the judgement and decree dated 26.11.1994 (decree signed on 07.12.1994) passed by learned 1st Additional Munsif, Daltonganj in Title Suit No.12 of 1988. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was primarily for declaration of adverse possession with respect to two Schedules of the plaint. Schedule A was relating to plot no.20 and Schedule B was relating to plot no.1361. He submits that both the courts although have found the plaintiffs in possession of the property, 2026:JHHC:15279 2 but have dismissed the plea of adverse possession primarily on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. 3. During the course of arguments, it transpired that so far as plot no.1361 is concerned, the same was Khas mahal property of the government, but it was asserted that the Khas Mahal Officer made raiyati settlement of the same to one Gokul Mahto and by the time the settlement was made to Gokul Mahto, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs had already perfected the title by way of adverse possession. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the rightful owner of plot no.20 and plot no.1361 allowed the vendors of the ancestor of the plaintiffs to perfect their title through adverse possession and they did not give any cause of action to the plaintiffs to institute the suit against them making as defendants. It was their further case that by virtue of such amalgamation, in or about the year 1947 and 1945 respectively, the three properties i.e. plot no.1361, plot no.20 and plot no.21 formed one compact block and since then, their possession is open continuous peaceful and hostile against the raiyats of plot nos.20 and 1361, and therefore, the plaintiffs had perfected their title with respect to the suit property through adverse possession. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the findings of the learned court that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is not in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on account of non-substitution of respondent no.1 (iv), the entire appeal has abated. 7. To this, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 were claiming through different instruments and their interest is not joint and they had also filed their separate written statement, and therefore, the deceased respondent was in relation to defendant no.1 which was in relation to plot no.20, and therefore, it cannot be said that the entire appeal has abated. The appeal survives at least in connection with plot no.1361. 2026:JHHC:15279 3 8. The title suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration of adverse possession with respect to the property contained in Schedule A and Schedule B by asserting that the plaintiff has remained in possession for a period more than 12 years. Schedule A property was relating to Khata no.220 plot no.20, area 0.30 decimals, and Schedule B property was relating to plot no.1361, khata no.90, area 0.6 ½ decimals. 9. It is important to note that the appeal has abated with respect to respondent no.1 (iv). Respondent no.1 was defendant no.1 namely Ramkesh Mahto, son of late Nirpat Mahto, who was substituted at the 2nd appellate stage by his legal heirs and successors numbered as 1 (i) and 1 (v) and it is respondent no.1 (iv) namely Manju Devi, wife of Suryadeo Mahto and daughter of Ramkesh Mahto, who had died and not substituted. Consequently, the appeal has abated as against respondent no.1 (iv) vide order dated 16.12.2025. There were two defendants in the suit Ramkesh Mahto and Sureshwar Mahto, who were defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively. 10. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were the owner of certain land in plot no.21 by way of registered sale deed dated 07.02.1951 and towards the North was the suit plot no.20 which was part of Schedule A property. Schedule A property was amalgamated by the plaintiffs in plot no.21 way back in 1947. This property was standing in village Baralota. With respect Schedule B property, it is located in village Sudna and it is the case of the plaintiffs that Schedule B property was also amalgamated by the vendors of the ancestors of the plaintiffs in their aforesaid plot no.21. 11. Further case was that the rightful owner of plot no.20 and plot no.1361 of village Baralota and village Sudna respectively allowed the vendors of the ancestors of the plaintiffs to perfect their title through adverse possession and they never instituted any suit against the plaintiffs to recover possession. Consequently, plot nos.21, 20 and 1361 formed one compact block and Budhan Devi, the purchaser of plot no.21, which was the property of the plaintiffs by virtue of registered sale deed had perfected title with respect to the 2026:JHHC:15279 4 amalgamated portion of plot no.20 and plot no.1361 and acquired title through adverse possession by the year 1959 when Budhan Devi died and her sole heir and successor, the father and the husband of the plaintiffs came in possession of plot no.21 along with amalgamated portion of plot nos.20 and 1361. 12. It was the case of the plaintiffs that plot no.1361 was settled in favour of Gokul Mahto, by Khas Mahal Officer in the year 1960 and by that time Budhan Devi had already acquired title by way of adverse possession with respect to 6 ½ decimals and the remaining 6 ½ decimals was with one Surendra Pal (which is not the suit property). It was their further case that the settlement in favour of Gokul Mahto in respect of 0.13 decimals of plot no.1361 remained in papers only. 13. Thus, the admitted fact in connection with plot no.1361 was that the same was Khas mahal property and the government had settled the same with one Gokul Mahto in the year 1960 but it is alleged that Gokul Mahto never came in possession. With respect to this property, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff himself acknowledged the title of the State as it was admittedly Khas mahal property. Further, neither the State government was made party in the proceeding, nor Gokul Mahto was made party. 14. It is important to note that as per the plaintiff Gokul Mahto had executed a sale deed in favour of Sardar Hansraj Singh, who executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. These deeds were alleged to be by way of fictitious consideration/without consideration. 15. Defendant no.1 Ramkeshwar Singh, filed a written statement in connection with plot no.20 i.e. Schedule A property and denied that it was ever amalgamated with plot no.21 and that the plaintiffs or Budhan Devi, or her vendors had never been in possession of any portion much less 30 decimals of land of plot no.20 and the claim of adverse possession was denied. It was asserted that defendant no.1 had purchased 10 decimals of land of plot no.20 by registered sale deed dated 12.07.1979 along with Saraswati Devi, Mahila Silpkala Bhawan through Ganauri Thakur from Ram Pyari Tiwari, Jaisari Tiwari, Ramugriv Tiwari and Rajeshwar Tiwari, the ex-landlords and the 2026:JHHC:15279 5 owners and holders of the land of plot no.20. The total purchase was 40 decimals and as per amicable arrangement, defendant no.1 got 0.13 decimals of plot 40 decimals which took place in between the purchasers. The total area of plot no.20 was 93 decimals which was purchased by vendors named in the written statement. Through another sale deed Shanti Devi, Ganauri Thakur, Shkshu Mandal purchased 0.53 decimals of plot no.20 on 12.07.1979 and 0.40 decimals of plot no.20 was purchased by defendant no.1 and others jointly. It was asserted that Surendra Pal was a necessary party and that plaintiff or Budhan Devi never perfected their title over plot no.1361 area 0.6 ½ decimals or over any portion of plot no.20 and that defendant no.1 has got residential house, factory of iron and shop of Radio, etc. since long. 16. The defendant no.2 Sureshwar Mahto, had filed separate written statement and also raised similar points. It was asserted that no portion of plot no.20 was ever amalgamated with plot no.21 at any point of time and the claim of adverse possession with respect to the properties involved in this case was denied. It was asserted that defendant no.2 had right, title and interest and possession with respect to Schedule B of the plaint purchased through registered sale deed no.3078 dated 11.4.1983 from Sardar Mahendra Singh on payment of consideration and was in possession since 11.04.1983. The plaintiff or their vendors never asserted or exercised any right, title interest or possession with respect to any portion of plot no.20 and the story of adverse possession was denied. It was asserted that the plaintiffs took law in their hands on 01.08.1989 on which date they ploughed the land of plot no.1361 and there was an order to maintain status quo. There is a road in southern boundary of Schedule B land and there is no land of the plaintiffs. Plot no.1361 was recorded as Gair Mazurwa Malik plot under Khas mahal in cadastral survey and it was denied that Hanuman Das, Bharat Das and Shil Kuar ever took possession of plot no.1361. It was also asserted that Gokul Mahto, remained in possession of the property by virtue of settlement, which he ultimately sold. 2026:JHHC:15279 6 17. The plea of adverse possession was rejected by the learned trial court which was decided vide issue nos.(vi), (vii) and (viii) after detailed consideration of the materials available on record. The learned trial court while deciding issue no.(v) arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff did not make Paras Nath, Mahendra Singh, Ganauri Thakur, Jagmohan Kahar and others party and decided issue no.v in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Further, while deciding issue no.(vi), (vii) and (viii) together, the learned trial court found possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land but refused to declare plaintiffs title through adverse possession due to non-joinder of Paras Nath. The learned trial court had not mentioned in the impugned judgement as to from which date or period the plaintiffs were found in possession since mere possession is not sufficient for the purposes of perfection of title by way of adverse possession. 18. The learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 13 observed that from the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidences available on record, some of the necessary parties such as the real owners against whom adverse possession was claimed were left by the plaintiffs and in whose absence, there cannot be just and complete adjudication regarding perfection of title through adverse possession. The court also recorded that P.W. 7 the plaintiff himself had admitted in his deposition during trial that the paramount owner of plot no.1361 being Khas mahal was the State government and admittedly, the State government was not a party in the suit. The court also observed that the plaintiff asserted in the plaint itself that the real owners of the suit land allowed the plaintiff and/his ancestors or ancestor’s vendor to perfect their title through adverse possession without disclosing the date from which the adverse possession started. The court observed that allowing possession by the real owner does not necessarily constitute adverse possession and such possession may be by prescription or permission and the possession by prescription or permission does not confer any title anytime. Under such circumstances, the learned 1st appellate court also held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the basic ingredients 2026:JHHC:15279 7 to claim adverse possession were not satisfied and mere possession does not amount to adverse possession. Further after considering the facts of the case, pleadings and the materials placed on record the learned 1st appellate court recorded that under the circumstance, the trial court did not feel it necessary to add the State government much less the unnamed real owners of the suit land as necessary party to the suit. The findings of the learned 1st appellate court are as under: - “13. While disposing of issue nos. VI, VII and VIII the learned lower court in his impugned judgement has refused to grant any relief to the plaintiff even after finding his possession over the suit land. As it has already been stated that mere possession ipso-facto does not perfect title since that possession should also be adverse and hostile to the rightful owner and that too for a statutory period. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant of title suit no.5/95 tried to distinguish the difference between a necessary party and a proper party and further placed reliance on provision of order I, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. Rule 9 says that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties and the court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it; provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. Here in the present case, I also find from pleadings of the Parties as well as the evidences available on record that some necessary party such as real owners against whom adverse possession claimed have been left by the plaintiff in whose absence there cannot be just and complete adjudication regarding perfection of title through adverse possession. The learned lawyer further drew attention of this court on provision of order I, rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. which empowers the court to pass order that the names of any person who ought to have been joined as a party or 2026:JHHC:15279 8 whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. P.W.7, the plaintiff himself has admitted in his deposition during trial that the paramount owner of plot no.1361 being khas mahal is the state government. In plaint itself it has been the case of the plaintiff that the real owners of the suit lands allowed the plaintiff and or his ancestors or ancestor's vendor to perfect title through adverse possession without disclosing the date from which adverse possession started. Allowing by the real owner to perfect possession does not necessarily constitute adverse possession and such possession may be by prescription or permission and possession by prescription or permission does not confer title at any time. Under the circumstance the learned lower court did not feel necessary to add the state government much less the unnamed real owners of the suit land as necessary party to the suit.” 19. It is also important to note that at the appellate stage, the plaintiff had filed a petition seeking amendment of the plaint by claiming right of easement which was not allowed vide order dated 04.03.2003 as the claim of easement right from claim of adverse possession would amount to change of the nature of the suit itself. 20. The 1st appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeal by holding that the learned trial court rightly refused to grant relief to the plaintiffs finding that the suit failed due to non-joinder of necessary party. 21. This Court finds that the numerous parties, who were necessary parties to the suit including the State as plot no.1361 belonged to the State government as Khas mahal property (lease given by State government), were not made parties to the suit in spite of clear assertion that the property belonged to such persons/State in absence of whom it was not possible for the court to pronounce on the claim of adverse possession. The 1st appellate court has given sound reasons to 2026:JHHC:15279 9 uphold the finding of the learned trial court on the point of non-joinder of necessary party by observing that mere possession of predecessor in interest with respect to the suit property would not amount to their adverse possession and consequently to assert the adverse possession such persons and also State (part of the suit property was Khas mahal lease property) were necessary parties to the suit. 22. Apart from the aforesaid regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, the 1st appellate court rightly observed that the plaintiff asserted in the plaint itself that the real owners of the suit land allowed the plaintiff and/his ancestors or ancestor’s vendor to perfect their title through adverse possession without disclosing the date from which the adverse possession started. The court observed that allowing possession by the real owner does not necessarily constitute adverse possession. 23. This Court is of the view that there are concurrent findings by the learned courts which are based on sound reasons. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this 2nd appeal. This 2nd appeal is accordingly dismissed. 24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of pronouncement: 15.05.2026 Saurav/ Date of Uploading: 18.05.2026