2026:JHHC:2280 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 228 of 2023 1. Maheshwar Mahto, aged about 42 years, son of Late Babulal Mahto 2. Phani Mahto, aged about 55 years, son of Late Kharia Mahto 3. Anil Mahato, aged about 53 years, son of Late Kharia Mahto 4. Dinesh Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahto, aged about 41 years, son of Paltu Mahto 5. Srikanta Mahto, aged about 38 years, son of Late Sadanand Mahto All residents of Village- Barpokhar, P.O.- Kura, P.S.- Pindrajora, District- Bokaro … … Plaintiffs 1st set/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Chhutia Devi, wife of Late Guhi Ram Mahto 2. Bhagirath Mahato, son of Guhi Ram Mahto Both residents of Village- Barpokhar, P.O.- Kura, P.S.- Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro 3. Kavita Devi, D/o Late Guhi Ram Mahto, W/o Bhikhan Mahato, R/o Village- Kura, Tola- Purandih, P.O.- Kura, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro 4. Anita Devi, D/o Late Guhi Ram Mahto, W/o Adu Mahto, R/o Village- Bharsundha, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, Dist.- Bokaro 5. Urmila Devi, D/o Late Guhi Ram Mahto, R/o Barpokhar, P.O.- Kura, P.S.- Pindrajora, District- Bokaro 6. Janki Devi, D/o Late Guhi Ram Mahto, R/o Village- Bhandro, Tola- Santhaldih, P.O.- Kura, P.S.- Pindrajora, District-Bokaro 7. Tarani Mahto S/o Late Barju Mahto 8. Kamla Devi, W/o Late Chinibas Mahto 9. Murlidhar Mahto 10. Pabar Kumar, both sons of Late Chinibas Mahto No.7 to 10 R/o Village- Barpokhar, P.O.- Kura, P.S.- Pindrajora, District- Bokaro 11. Suma Devi, D/o Late Chinibas Mahto, W/o Anil Mahto, R/o Village- Solagidih, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro 12. Kristomani Mahatain, D/o Late Barju Mahto 13. Mutka Mahto 14. Mukta Mahato 15. Uday Mahto 13, 14, 15 all sons of Late Putra @ Haradhan Mahato 16. Sishir Mahto 17. Mihir Mahto 18. Gopal Mahto All sons of late Haripada Mahto 19. Santosh Mahto 20. Kunta Devi, W/o Late Kisto Mahto. 21. Santosh Mahto 22. Prakash Mahto 2026:JHHC:2280 2 23. Vikash Mahto All sons of Late Kisto Mahto 24. Jhuna Mahatain, D/o Late Dukhu Mahto 25. Gour Mahto, S/o Late Baleshwar Mahto 26. Negibala @ Nemi Bala Devya, D/o Late Baleshwar Mahto, W/O Arjun Mahto 27. Debi Bala Devi, W/o Jagal Mahto, R/o Village- Baradih, P.O.- Bandhdih, P.S.- Jaridih, District- Bokaro 28. Chhabi Bala Devi, W/o Sadanand Prajapati, R/o Village- Baradih, P.O.- Bandhdih, P.S.- Jaridih, District- Bokaro. 29. Kunti Mahatain, D/o Late Mohan Mahto 30. Sri Mati Mahatain, D/o Late Mohan Mahto All residents of Village- Borpokhar, P.O.- Kura, P.S. Pindrajora, District- Bokaro 31. Dhananjay Mahto, S/o Late Dina Mahto, R/o Village- Purandih, P.O.- Kura, P.S.- Pindrajora, District-Bokaro ... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 32. Lekho Mahato, S/o Late Umesh Mahato 33. Dhani Ram Mahto 34. Falender Mahto All sons of Late Umesh Mahto 35. Tunulal Mahto 36. Chetlal Mahto, Both sons of Late Rupan Mahto 37. Bhola Mahto, son of Late Shambhu Mahto 38. Manilal Mahto 39. Ganesh Mahto 40. Baijal Mahto 41. Deo Narayan Mahto All sons of Late Manglu @ Dhanu Mahto, all R/o Village- Barpokhar, P.O.- Kura, P.S. Pindrajora, District-Bokaro, A/P residing at Village- Nawadih, Tola- Narayanpur, P.S.- Nawadih, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand ... ... Plaintiffs 2nd set/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate --- 14/29.01.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 22.07.2023 (Decree signed on 28.07.2023) passed by learned District Judge-IV, Bokaro in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2017, affirming the Judgment dated 31.08.2017 (Decree signed on 11.09.2017) passed by learned Additional Munsif, Bokaro in Title Suit No.66 of 2001. 2026:JHHC:2280 3 3. The title suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment and decree passed in title suit was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs 1st set are the appellants before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there were two sets of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs 2nd set had sold the suit property to the plaintiffs 1st set vide two sale deeds both dated 25.07.1990 which were exhibited as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/a. The plaintiffs 2nd set claimed to be the descendants of the recorded tenant and the plaintiffs 1st set were purchasers from the plaintiffs 2nd set. The plaintiffs 1st set are the appellants before this Court. The learned counsel submitted that the defendants had claimed that they had purchased the property by registered sale deed of the year 1932 (Exhibit-G). The learned counsel submitted that the learned court has wrongly dismissed the suit on the point of limitation. The learned counsel also submitted that the defendants had claimed that they had acquired the property by way of auction sale (Exhibit-A). The learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed executed in the year 1932 (Exhibit-G) was never acted upon. He submitted that the learned court has held that the plaintiffs 2nd set came to know about the sale deed of the year 1932 (Exhibit-G) on 02.06.1990 and 12.06.1990 and thereafter, sold the property to plaintiffs 1st set vide registered sale deed dated 25.07.1990. He submitted that the suit cannot be barred against the plaintiffs 1st set. The learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiffs 2nd set had filed the suit way back in the year 1992 challenging the sale deed dated 20.05.1932, but the same was dismissed for default and the restoration application in connection with the same was also dismissed and ultimately the plaintiffs 2nd set joined with the plaintiffs 1st set to file a fresh suit in the year 2001. The learned counsel submitted that the suit was wrongly held to be barred by limitation and the point of limitation was wrongly decided against the plaintiffs 1st set, who are the appellants before this Court. 2026:JHHC:2280 4 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the plaintiffs 1st set and plaintiffs 2nd set have joined together to file a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A with a prayer that the defendants have not acquired any right, title and interest over the property. 6. The plaintiffs further prayed for declaration that the purchased deed in the name of predecessors of the defendant be declared as invalid, forged, manufactured and have never been acted upon and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also prayed for decree for confirmation of possession of the ancestors of the plaintiffs 2nd set and subsequently, plaintiffs 1st set as per the Sale Deed No. 7361 and 7362 over the suit property and if the plaintiffs are found dispossessed, a prayer was also made for recovery of possession. 7. The plaintiffs claimed that the plaintiffs 2nd set are the descendants of the recorded tenant and the genealogy of the recorded tenant was mentioned in the schedule-B of the plaint. Further case of the plaintiffs was that after demise of the ancestors of the plaintiffs 2nd set, they inherited the property and came in possession and they were living outside the village. They had given the property to the plaintiffs 1st set on sharing basis and had appointed one Niranjan Nag as their caretaker and the cultivation was being performed by the plaintiffs 1st set. Subsequently, the plaintiffs 1st set proposed to purchase the portion land under Khata No.261 and 262 to which the plaintiffs 2nd set agreed and by virtue of two sale deeds being Sale Deed Nos. 7361 and 7362 both dated 25.07.1990, the plaintiffs 2nd set sold 1.60 acres of land out of area 2.28 acres under Khata No. 261 and 40 decimals out of 1.02 acres i.e. 1/3rd shares of the total area 3.06 acres and delivered the possession to the plaintiffs 1st set. 8. When the co-sharer came to know about it, they tried to take forcible possession of the lands. Thereafter in 1990, Plaintiff No.11 went to the Circle Office and informed that the defendants are claiming the said lands as their purchased lands and the defendants for 2026:JHHC:2280 5 the first time in 1990 revealed the fact of having purchased the lands. The plaintiffs further asserted that the defendants have produced a collusive registered sale deed executed by the owner of Khata No.4 and 5 who are the immediate landlords of the occupancy raiyats. The ancestors of the plaintiffs 2nd set who have accepted rent from the said raiyats and granted rent receipts and the vendors of the defendants have also admitted that the ancestors of the plaintiffs 2nd set as permanent raiyats under them. It was asserted that the sale deed was a mere paper transaction, not meant to be acted upon and is collusive, without consideration and bogus. 9. A title suit being Title Suit No.15 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiffs 2nd set against the defendants making the plaintiffs 1st set as proforma defendants. The prayer of Title Suit No.15 of 1992 has also been quoted in the title suit judgment. 10. It was asserted that the Title Suit No.15 of 1992 was dismissed for default on 13.04.1993 for which a Misc. Case No.14 of 1993 was filed, but the said Misc. Case No.14 of 1993 was also dismissed for default on 06.09.1993 and thereafter another Misc. Case No.26 of 1993 was filed which too was dismissed for default on 01.12.1998. 11. It was asserted that there were some material defects and some facts were omitted in the plaint and the purchasers were not fully and appropriately made parties and hence, a fresh suit was required to be filed. 12. It was also asserted that the cause of action for the present suit arose on and from the first date revealing the claim of defendants on 02.06.1990 and 12.06.1990 when the plaintiffs obtained the certified copy of the registered Sale Deed No.2117 dated 20.05.1932 and subsequently on 11.02.1991 when the Anchal Adhikary refused to accept rent and lastly, on 04.12.1998 when the Misc. Case No. 26 of 1993 for restoring the Title Suit No.15 of 1992 was dismissed for default. 13. The suit was contested by the Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 8a, 8b, 8e, 10 ad 12, who asserted that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, 2026:JHHC:2280 6 the suit is not maintainable in its present form and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendants had further asserted that the plaintiffs 2nd set never possessed the property in suit, nor acquired any right, title, interest and possession over the same. 14. It was asserted that the property was possessed by Golam Mahato and the property was sold in auction. Dhananjoy Mahato purchased the property in auction in Rent Decree Execution Case No.1157 of 1919/20 and obtained Sale Certificate from the Deputy Collector, Puruliya on 30.07.1920 and thereafter, Golam Mahato and/or his descendants ceased to have any right, title, interest and possession over any portion of the properties. The sale was effected immediately preceding the C.S. Operation and accordingly, the entries in the C.S. Record of Right with respect to C.S. Khatian No.261 and 262, the properties sold in auction, were erroneously prepared in the names of the descendants of Golam Mahato. Subsequently, the record was duly prepared in the name of the auction purchaser Dhananjoy Mahato and his brothers and they were in possession of the properties. It was asserted that after acquiring the property through auction sale, Dhananjoy Mahato and his brothers transferred the property in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants by registered Sale Deed dated 20.05.1932. 15. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action to bring this suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation and principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? 4. Whether the suit is barred by principles of sub- judicata? 5. Whether the defendants and their predecessor have acquired valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit property by virtue of Regd. Patta Dt. 20.05.1932? 6. Whether the plaintiff second set has valid right, title, over the suit property on 25.06.90 and when they sold the same to the plaintiff first set? 2026:JHHC:2280 7 7. Whether the plaintiff first set acquired valid right, title and possession over the suit property by virtue of sale deed dt. 25.07.90? 8. Whether the plaintiff are entitled for the relief or reliefs as claimed in this suit? 16. The parties lead both oral and documentary evidences. The point of limitation was taken by the learned trial court in Paragraph- 5.1 and the learned trial court by referring Article 59 of the Limitation Act and by referring to the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint ultimately held that the suit is barred by limitation. The findings of the learned trial court is as follows:- “Section 3 of the Limitation Act lays down that the plaintiffs have taken a plea that the cause of action of the arose on 02.06.1990 and 12.06.1990 when they got the certified copy of the deed No. 2117 dated 20.05.1932 and had sought declaration for the right, title, interest and also to declare that the sale deed is invalid and never been acted upon and also for the decree of confirmation of the possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs plea is that the plaintiffs 2nd set sold lands from plot No. 261 and 262 to the plaintiffs 1st set vide sale deed No. 7361 and 7362 dated 26.06.1990. The land sold was 1.60 acres out of 2.28 from Khata No. 261 and 1.02 acres from 40 acres from 262 being 1/3rd share from 3.06 acres. When the defendants came to know they tried to take forcible possession of the lands. Plaintiffs No.11 went to the CO Office and came to know that the lands have been sold by collusion to the defendants other set. The defendants had obtained the mutation for the land and hence the plaintiff Nos. 11 and 12 had filed appeal before the LRDC being mutation appeal no. 1/1991 against the mutation case no. 1(IX) 1991. In the mutation appeared case the LRDC had made an observation that since TS No. 15 of 1992 is pending between parties and hence no finding were given. The LRDC after perusal of the LCR had dismissed the appeal on 11.02.1991. As per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs came to know about the sale of 1932 in the year 02.06.1990 and 12.06.1990. In TS 15 of 1992 the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants and plaintiffs 2nd set were made proforma defendants. In the TS 15 of 1992 the plaintiffs had prayed for decree of declaration for the suit property. The suit was 2026:JHHC:2280 8 dismissed for default on 13.04.1993. Thereafter, for the restoration of the suit Misc Case No. 14 of 1993 was filed which was dismissed for default on 06.09.1993. Thereafter, for restoration of the same Misc Case No. 26 of 1993 was filed and the same was again dismissed for default on 01.12.1998. This suit was filed on 07.12.2001 exactly after 3 years 6 days, even considering that Misc Case is a continuation of the suit. The plaintiffs as relief has prayed that the documents of the predecessors of the defendants are made up and are collusive and hence the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Article 59 of the Limitation Act clearly states that to cancel to set aside an instrument the period of limitation is 3 years and the period of computation starts when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contact rescinded first become known to him. In the case of Mangra Dhobi and another v Khendua Baraiuk and others AIR 2006 Jhar 16, in this case the apex court had held that the suit filed beyond the three years from the date of knowledge of sale deed was held barred by limitation. The defendants have taken the plea that the suit is barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence but the defendants have not led any evidences in support of the pleadings. Hence this part of issue is decided against the defendants.” 17. Thereafter, the learned trial court took the issue regarding legality and validity of registered sale deed dated 20.05.1932 and observed as follows:- “This issue as it appears is by way of counterclaim. Whenever the defendants claim any relief by way of counterclaim and not as a defence, then advoleram court fee is to be paid by the defendants seeking relief on the same. In this case the defendants have not paid any advoleram court fee and hence this issue cannot be decided in this suit.” 18. The learned trial court in Paragraph-5.3 considered the Issue No. 6 and 7 together and recorded that the plaintiffs has failed to prove their right, title and interest over the property and decided the issues against the plaintiffs. The learned trial court recorded that from the documentary evidences, it is clear that the plaintiffs did not have a clear title over the property as the property was transferred to the 2026:JHHC:2280 9 defendants’ ancestors and was earlier conveyed back in the year 1932 which cannot be cancelled being absolutely barred by limitation. The plaintiffs 2nd set did not have any interest over the suit land in the year 1990 which they have conveyed to the plaintiffs 1st set. The findings are recorded as under:- “5.3............................................................................................. ...........................Hence the documentary evidence it is clear that the plaintiffs did not have a clear title, interest over the property as the property had been transferred to the defendants ancestors. Also as earlier the conveyance of 1932 cannot be cancelled being hopelessly barred by Limitation the plaintiffs 2nd set did not have any interest even the suit land in the year 1990 which they could have conveyed to the plaintiffs 1st set. The oral evidences of both parties are no aid to the pleadings of the plaintiffs since all of them have denied the sale of 1932 and P.W. 4 have denied T.S. 11 of 1992 against him which was exhibited by the defendants as Exhibit-5. Which shows P.W.4 as the defendants 3 in that case. They have only supported the transfer of 1990 in favour of the plaintiffs 1st set. Hence in my view the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, interest, title over the suit property by the evidences led by them and hence these both issues are decided against them.” 19. Thereafter, the learned trial court considered Issue No.4 with regard to the point of res-judicata and the learned trial court held that the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata. The learned trial court considered the Issue No.2 in Paragraph-5.6 of its judgment which is quoted as under:- “5.6 Coming to the next issue whether: 2. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action to bring this suit? As already discussed the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation. Cause of action are those bundle of facts which the party seeking relief as to prove before the court. The plaintiffs have taken a plea that cause of action arose on 02.06.1990 and 12.06.1990 when they had obtained the cc of the sale deed No. 2117 dated 20.05.1932 and came to know about the earlier sale. In spite having the knowledge regarding an earlier sale the plaintiffs 2nd set had transferred the suit lands to the plaintiffs 1st set vide registered sale deed No. 7361 and 7362 dated 25.07.1990. The transfer was done almost after 1 month 2026:JHHC:2280 10 when the transfer of 1932 coming known to the plaintiffs 2nd set. The plaintiffs have not challenged the auction sale or the registered sale deed of 1932. Its only that they have prayed for cancellation of the deed. Hence the act of the plaintiffs appear that to be an attempt to get the deed of 1932 cancelled which was barred by both res-judicata and limitation.” 20. The learned trial court recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their pleadings by way of both documentary and oral evidences and dismissed the suit. 21. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the materials on record and ultimately recorded findings against the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal. 22. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the suit was barred by limitation and by the principle of res-judicata. 23. This Court finds that both the courts have considered the materials on record and have given concurrent findings. After auction sale, the suit properties stood already transferred in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants which was sold to the ancestors of the defendants in the year 1932 and thereafter, the recorded tenants had no surviving interest in the suit property. No perversity in the matter of appreciation has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 25. This second appeal is accordingly 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.) 29.01.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-12th March, 2026.