2026:JHHC:3487 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 261 of 2017 Balo Yadav son of late Bhekhlal Yadav, Resident of Village Mundro, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih. … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Dhalo Yadav, son of late Tokan Yadav (died and substituted vide order dated 07.08.2024) 1(a) Nemiya Devi, aged about 73 years, Wife of Late Dhalo Yadav, Resident of Panchayat Chaudharibandh, Block Bagodar, Village- Mundro, PO- Chaudhribandh, PS- Bagodar, District-Giridih (Jharkhand), Pin Code-825322. 1(b) Mahesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 44 years, Son of Late Dhalo Yadav, Resident of Mundro, PO- Choudhary Band, PS- Mundro, Dumri, District- Giridih (Jharkhand), Pin Code-825106. 1(c) Govind Yadav, aged about 42 years, Son of Late Dhalo Yadav, Resident of Panchayat Chaudharibandh, Block Bagodar, Village- Mundro, PO- Chaudhribandh, PS- Bagodar, District-Giridih (Jharkhand), Pin Code-825322. 1(d) Chhotan Dhalo Yadav, aged about 39 years, Son of Late Dhalo Yadav, Resident of Near Iskcon Temple, B-707, Jal Darshan, Ruia Park, Gandhigram Road, PO & PS- Juhu, District- Mumbai (Maharashtra), Pin Code-400049. 2. Jitendra Yadav, son of late Lattu Yadav 3. Srimati Bimla Devi, daughter of late Lattu Yadav 4. Jagdish Yadav son of late Tokan Yadav All Resident of Village Mundro, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih. … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate : Ms. Pratayksha Bhaskar, Advocate --- 29/10.02.2026 1. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.03.2017 (decree signed on 11.04.2017) passed by learned District Judge-I, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 23 of 2012, whereby the learned 1st appellate court was pleased to dismiss the Title Appeal and 2026:JHHC:3487 2 confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 (decree signed on 11.04.2017) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Giridih in Title Suit No. 183 of 2000. The suit was decreed; 1st appeal was dismissed and the defendant is the appellant before this Court. 2. Vide order dated 13th November, 2019 and 08.12.2025, following substantial questions of law were framed: I. Whether the appellate court below judgment is perverse for considering the Ext.4 and 4/1 which is register-II in the name of Taki Yadav who is the ancestor of the plaintiff and at the same time not considering the Ext.A filed by the defendant which the certified copy of the register-II showing the name of defendant-Balo Yadav who is the appellant in the S.A and thus, in view of the matter, the judgment of the appellate court below is perverse or not? II. Whether the learned 1st appellate court while recording that the claim of plaintiff in connection with registered sale-deed was only to the extent of 0.93 acres in Khata No. 2, has committed perversity particularly on account of non- production of sale-deed relating to 46 decimals of land, as claimed in the plaint? 3. The suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the suit property. Schedule 'A' 1.07 acres land of khata no. l of village Mundaro, Thans no.82, P.S. Bagodar, Distt. Giridih details as below:- Plot No. Area Boundary 51 73 dec. N- Parti land plot no. 51 S. Rasta, E- Rasta, W- Tand land of Indramani Yadav 229 34 dec. N- Rasta, S- Land of plaintiff and others E- Land of Dukhi Yadav W- Purchased land of Lato Yadav. Schedule ‘B’ suit land 2026:JHHC:3487 3 34 dec. land under plot no. 229 khata no. 1 of village Mundaro Thana No. 82, P.S. Bagodar, Distt. Giridih bounded as:- North- Rasta, South- Land of Plaintiff and others East- Land of Dukhi Yadav, West- Purchased land of Lato Yadav. 4. Case of the Plaintiffs I. That one Teki Mahto s/o late Duli Mahto was grandfather of the plaintiff. Teki Mahto purchased 1.39 acres land of khata no.2 by virtue of registered deed of sale no. 2173 dated 10.5.1944 on annual rent of Rs.3/- including cess. On the very date of purchase said Teki Mahto came in possession of the purchased land. By virtue of said sale deed Teki Mahto purchased 56 decimals out of 1.14 acres land of plot no.130 khata no.2 along with other lands but soon after the purchase it came in light that the Vendors had only 10 decimals land under plot m.130 in their possession to sell and therefore , the purchaser, Teki Mahto, came in possession of only 10 dec. of plot no.130 land instead of 56 dec. as the vendors had earlier sold 46 decimals of plot no. 130 to Raghubir Mahto. Teki Mahto came in possession of 93 dec. land out of 1.39 acres purchased land under different plots in khata no. 2. The name of Teki Mahto was mutated in the office of the then landlord of the village with respect to said 93 dec. purchased land and the rent described in the sale deed was reduced according to the shortage of 46 dec. land of plot No. 130. II. With respect to khata no.1 it was the case of the plaintiff that the then landlord, in or about the year 1945 settled 73 decimals land of plot no.51 and 34 decimals of plot no.229 of Khata No. 1 fully described in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, orally settled with Teki Mahto and put him in khas possession thereof and in confirmation of the settlement received rent from Teki Mahto and granted rent receipts thereof. 2026:JHHC:3487 4 III. That the annual rent of above settled 1.07 acres land in khata no. 1 together with 93 dec. the land purchased by Teki Mahto in khata no.2, total arca 2 acres, was fixed Rs.3/-, excluding cess, by the landlord. IV. The land under plot no.51 and 229 was reclaimed into cultivable land and since then Teki Mahato grew different crops and enjoyed its usufructs. After vesting of zamindari the revenue Register II was prepared and the name of Teki Mahto with respect to said two acres land was entered therein and rent was being regularly paid to the state obtaining rent receipt thereof. V. Teki Mahto died leaving behind his two sons namely Tokna @ Tokan Yadav and Khem Chand Yadav, who succeeded their father and came in possession of the land including the land of schedule 'A'.Tokan Yadav and Khemchand Yadav disrupted their mess and also partitioned the land including the land in schedule 'A' below and land in schedule 'B' of the plaint , which is part and parcel of schedule 'A' land, was allotted to the share of Tokan Yadav who amalgamated some area of plot no.229 with his raiyati land under plot no.225 which is adjacent south of Plot No. 229. VI. VI. Tokan Yadav died in the year 1988 leaving behind his three sons namely Dhalo Yadav, Latu Yadav and Jagdish Yadav, who succeeded their father and came in possession of the land including schedule ‘B’ land alongwith other land left by their father. Dhalo Yadav being elder brother is karta of the family and sued in the capacity of karta of the joint family. That the plaintiff has erected a brick compound wall on northern middle portion of schedule ‘B’ land. VII. That on 20.6.2000 the defendant Balo Yadav alongwith his men came upon the schedule 'B' land and wanted to dispossesses the plaintiff from Schedule 'B' suit land but the plaintiff retained his possession and ousted the defendant 2026:JHHC:3487 5 from the suit land and since then the defendant has started denying the title of the plaintiff. 5. Case of the Defendant a) The father of the defendant was coming in actual physical possession and as such ex-landlord, as early as in the year 1941, out of total area 1.50 acres made settlement of 0.40 acres of land in Plot no. 51 within a definite boundary and with detailed and described identity and similarly made settlement of 0.32 acres out of 0.34 acres in Plot no.229 by virtue of a Sada Hukumnama. Thus, defendant acquired 0.72 acres of land of Khata no. 1. b) After acquiring the aforesaid lands the father of the defendant got it measured and demarcated with the help of Amin of the ex-landlord and accordingly fard report Amin got prepared on 14/4/42 and defendant became the recorded tenant of the ex-landlord and paid rent and after vesting upon coming into force of Bihar Lands Reforms Act 1950, became the recorded tenant of the State and is paying rents regularly to the State, being duly recorded in the tenants ledger i.e. Register II maintained by the State. This 0.72 acres of lands embraces 0.32 acres of the lands in suit detailed and described in Schedule 'B' and 0.72 acres of Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, whereas 0.02 acres of lands in Plot no. 229 is in actual physical possession of one Lato Yadav, a co-sharer of the answering defendant. Not even an inch of Plot no.229 is in possession of the plaintiff. As stated above this answering defendant is the absolute owner of the aforesaid lands measuring 0.72 acres of lands i.e. 0.40 acres in Plot no. 51 and 0.32 acres in Plot no.229 having indefeasible interest and actual exclusive possession over the same. The defendant, right from the time of ex-landlord and settlement by him is paying rents more than Rs.2/- for 0.72 acres and apparently the assertions of the plaintiffs is baseless, bogus and imaginary. 2026:JHHC:3487 6 c) Said Teki Mahto or his descendants including the plaintiff never came in possession of an inch of Jama of lands acquired by this defendant and which has been shown as part and parcel of Schedule ‘A’ and 'B' lands nor ever paid rents for the same either to the ex-landlord or to the State. The plaintiff or its ancestors were never recorded tenant of the State nor were recorded under Register II, maintained by the State with respect to these lands held by defendant. 6. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: I. Is there any cause of action for this suit? II. Is the suit maintainable? III. Is the suit barred by law of limitation, waiver, acquiescence and estoppel? IV. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? V. Was plot no. 51 area 0.73 acres and plot no. 229 area 0.34 acres settled with Taki Mahto orally in the year 1945? VI. Has the plaintiff title to the suit land? VII. To what relief or reliefs if any the plaintiff is entitled to? VIII. Whether the suit is undervalued and proper advolerum court fee less not been paid thereon and whether the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court? IX. Whether the suit land was settled with the defendant in the year 1991 by virtue of a Sada Hukumnama ?” 7. Before the learned trial court, the plaintiffs adduced altogether three witnesses. P.W. 1 was Mitlal Yadav, P.W. 2 was Jagdish Yadav and P.W. 3 was Chandramoleshwar Prasad. The plaintiffs also adduced some documentary evidences as under: Ext.1:- Certified copy of sale deed of Khata no. 2 of Mouza Mundro. Ext.2:- Certified copy of Khatiyan of Khata no. 1 of Mouza Mundro. 2026:JHHC:3487 7 Ext. 3 to 3/a, 3/C, 3/F, 3/G, 3/H, 3/I and 3/J:- Govt. Malgujari receipt issue in favour of Taki Yadav relating to Khata no. 1 and 2 total rakwa two acres. Ext 3/B, 3/C and 3/D:- Jamindari rent receipt of total rakwa two acre. Ext. 4 and 4/I:- Certified copy of Register II in the name of Taki Yadav. Ext.5:- Voter list of Mouza Mundro issue in the year 2005 regarding proof the age of Balo Yadav. 8. The defendants adduced altogether five witnesses on their behalf. D.W.-1 was Bhuneshwar Yadav, D.W. 2 was Bhim Yadav, D.W. 3 was Dilo Yadav, D.W. 4 was Balo Yadav and D.W.5 was Suresh Yadav. The defendants also adduced some documentary evidences which are as under: Ext. A:- Certified copy of Register II showing name of defendant Balo Yadav. Ext.B and B/1:- Govt rent receipt of the year 1999- 2001. Ext.C:- Fard Amin report (with objection). Ext.D:- Hukumnama issued in favour of Balo Yadav of plot no. 229 Khata no. 1. 9. The learned trial court first decided issue no. VI and after considering the materials on record, held that that on account of entry of name of defendant in Register II, no title was created in his favour. The learned trial court held that plot no. 51 area 0.73 acres and plot no. 229 area 0.34 acres was settled with Teki Mahto in the year 1945 and disbelieved the claim of settlement as made by the defendant by citing numerous reasons. Further, it was held by the learned court that on the principles of preponderance of probability, the case of the plaintiffs was more probable and worthy of placing reliance and held that plaintiffs have a better title than the defendants over the suit land. Accordingly, it was held by the learned court that the plaintiffs have subsisting right, title, interest over the suit property. The learned trial court also held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property. The findings relevant for the purposes of this case are quoted as under:- “Issue no.VI 2026:JHHC:3487 8 7. In course of hearing the crux of matters and controversy raised by the defendant appeared as denial of right, title of the plaintiff on the suit land therefore this issue is taken first for discussion. ………………………………………………………………………… Reverting back to the fact of this case, the plaintiff has come with his case on account of oral settlement followed by rent receipt, delivery of possession and in support filed Jamindari receipt, Malguzari receipt issued from State as well as entry of name of his ancestor in the Register II. Therefore, the plaintiff case is fit and in conformity with the provisions of law. On the point of possession PW.1 in para 3, PW.2 in para 4 and 5, supported the fact of possession of the plaintiff on the suit land. Regards rent receipts issued in favour of plaintiff is concerned, PW.2 in para 6, PW. 3 in para 1, 2 and 3 supported the rent receipt of Jamindar as well as Malgujari receipt of State issued in favour of plaintiff. From the cross examination of the learned counsel of the defendant it appears that they failed to shake the credibility of plaintiff witnesses. Now, with regards to the settlement by the ex- landlord in favour of defendant is concerned, the defendant’s case is based on settlement by Sada Hukumnama followed by rent receipt and entry of his name of Register II. It is admitted that title may be created by Sada Hukumnama but delivery of possession is must. Further as held in AIR 1964 Patna V 1 (Full Bench) in Ramnath Mandal and others Vs. Ugan Mahto and other “if any transaction regarding lease for agricultural purpose is reduced into writing then in case of rent from year to year or for any term existing a year or reserving a yearly rent, registration would be required U/S 17 of Registration Act and if unregistered the lease will be inadmissible in evidence U/S 49 of Registration Act and other evidence of its terms will be precluded U/S 91 of Evidence Act. Thus, the written lease which is Sada Hukumnama executed in favour of the defendant is required to be registered. One another important aspect of the settlement in favour of defendant is that at the time of settlement the defendant was at about 10 years as he himself admitted in his evidence. Though as per voter list of Mauza Mundro his age may be less than 10 years but any how he was minor at the time of settlement. Now question is whether valid agricultural lease can legally be created in favour of a minor. Though the learned counsel of the defendant submitted that since it was for the benefit of the minor therefore, it is valid. In this regard learned counsel of the defendant simply submits that at the 2026:JHHC:3487 9 time of lease the defendant was minor therefore lease is not valid. ………………………………………………………………………… …………. Here in this case Hukumnama is unilateral document and it has not been stated that on behalf of the defendant his father executed the said Hukumnama. A lease is a contract where under the transferee accepts certain obligation therefore, the transferee must be one who is capable of contracting. It is well settled that a lease to a minor is void as the lease imports a covenant by the minor to pay rent and other reciprocal obligation and Sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act referred above also makes it clear that a lease to a minor must be void because it has to be executed by both the lessor or the lessee. Thus, lease can not be created in favour of minor and the Sada Hukumnama in favour of minor is void. Apart from that from the perusal of the Hukumnama it anspires that it relates to Gairmajarua land of the landlord but from the Khatiyan which is proved on behalf of the plaintiff indicates that the land in suit i.e. of Khata no. 1 relates to Bakast land of Jamindar. Further from the perusal of the evidence of DW.4 it transpires that he admitted in para 21 of his cross examination that Hukumnama was written by Munsi but from bare perusal of the Hukumnama it transpires that it has been written by same person who made signature thereon. Further also the Amin report which is Ext. C clearly shows cutting at the rakwa of land and this shows clear manipulation of the document as no initial is made at the cutting. Thus, it is not safe to relie upon it. Rent receipt proved in favour of the defendant is of the year 1999 just before the institution of this suit and one of the year 2001 after the institution of the suit. Further from the perusal of cross examination of D.W.5 it transpires that he has not proved the Malguzari rent receipts. In his evidence para 9 he stated that he cannot say the name of person who prepared receipt no. 8870605. Further also Ext. A shows that in register II the name of defendant is recorded for total area 0.72 acres. It is established law that mutation of name/ creation of Jamindari neither create any right, title upon the land it merely allows a person to have his name register in register II for purpose of payment of rent 2006 V. 4 JLJR 139. Therefore, on account of entry of name of defendant in register II no title created in his favour. Premised on the principles of preponderance of probability, I find that the case of the plaintiff is more probable and worthy of placing reliance and holding that he 2026:JHHC:3487 10 has a better title than the defendants over the suit land. In this view of the matter, I convincingly find and hold that the plaintiff has subsisting right, title, interest over the suit property. In this view of the matter, this vital issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE No. V 8. This issue is whether plot no. 51 area 0.73 acre, plot no. 229 area 0.34 acre settled with Taki Mahto early in the year 1945. ………………………………………………………………………… At the time of deciding issue no. 6, I already found that oral settlement of agricultural lease is valid. The plaintiff in support of the oral settlement has produced Jamindari rent receipt as well as State Malguzari receipt. From the Jamindari receipt as well as Malgujari receipt filed by the defendant it indicates that he is paying rent for total two acres of land and on that basis his name recorded in register II where separately specific rakwa of suit land is mentioned. In civil litigation payment of rent is considered to evidence of possession. The oral evidence regarding oral settlement is in corroboration with document produced on behalf of plaintiff. Thus, I find and hold that plot no. 51 area 0.73 acre plot no. 229 area 0.34 acre settled with Taki Mahto in the year 1945 and the issue is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff.” 10. While deciding issue no. IX i.e., the issue as to whether the suit land was settled with the defendant in the year 1941 by virtue of Sada Hukumnama, the learned court held as under: - “14. This issue is as to whether the suit land was settled with the defendant in the year 1941 by virtue of Sada Hukumnama. ………………………. the basis of the title of the defendant is Sada Hukumnama which is Ext. D and it relates to Garimajarua land of the Jamindar Masauri Singh. …………………………………… In the case in hand initial onus was on the plaintiff to prove his title of the suit land and the plaintiff has discharge his initial onus. In the circumstances, now the onus shifts on the shoulder of the defendant to prove that he has better title in comparison of the plaintiff. Further the onus to prove the Hukumnama which was upon the defendant has not been discharged. Law requires that if deed of settlement of agricultural land is executed in writing as in this case i.e. Sada Hukumnama it must be registered one. No Jamindari rent receipt has been proved 2026:JHHC:3487 11 on behalf of the defendant in support of his delivery of possession on the basis of Hukumnama. Thus, the onus casts upon the defendant to prove his case of getting Hukumnama in his favour has not been discharged. Thus, this issue is decided against the defendant.” 11. The defendant filed appeal. The learned 1st appellate court framed following points for determination: I. Whether the trial court was justified in holding that plaintiff has got title over the suit land. II. Whether the trial court was justified in holding that plot no.51 area 0.73 acres and plot no.229 area 0.34 acres were settled with Toki @ Taki Mahto orally in the year 1945 ? III. Whether the learned trial court was justified in holding that suit is not hit on the issue of non-joinder of the necessary parties? 12. The learned 1st appellate court gave its findings in paragraphs 10 to 19 as under: “10. POINTS NO. I & II 12. In the above cited decision the basis of the plaintiff's case was a written settlement(unregistered) and the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the said written settlement cannot be taken into evidence in order to prove the title of the plaintiff. Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that transfer of agricultural land may be affected by an oral agreement but when it reduced in writing the said document must be registered. The present case of the plaintiff was based on the oral settlement followed by rent receipts and delivery of possession. I have perused the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff and find that plaintiffs have brought Ext. 3/B to 3/D, zamindari rent receipts of an area of 2 acres. The case of the plaintiff was that their father took the settlement under khata no.1 of an area measuring 1.07 acres and got the sale deed of an area measuring 0.93 acres in khata no.2 and rent was accordingly realized by the landlord of total an area of 2 acres. Plaintiffs have further filed Ext. 3 to 3/A, 3/C,3/F,3/G,3/H,3/I and 3/J all are the govt. malgujazri receipts issued in 2026:JHHC:3487 12 favour of Taki Yadav that relates to the land under khata no.1 and 2 for an area 2 acres. C.C. of registered II that are Ext. 4 and 4/I have also been filed by the plaintiff that is also running in the name of Taki Yadav. ………………………………………… 14. In the light of the principle as held by the Apex Court, I have perused the settlement paper issued in favour of the defendant. On perusal of the sada hukumnama of the defendant, it appears to me that it was executed in favour of the defendant and as per the evidence of the defendant himself he was aged about 10 years at the time of execution of the settlement. The contention of learned counsel of the appellant do not impress me that it was only executed for the benefit of the minors. Defendant hereinafter appellant in his examination in chief has clearly admitted that hukumnama is of 65 years old. At the time of examination defendant has admitted his age about 74 years, it means defendant was below the age of 10 years at the time of execution of the hukumnama. Moreover while I perused the hukumnama I do not find any recital that it was settled for the benefit of the defendant. Apart from these, on perusal of the hukumana( Ext. D) I find that it relates to gairmajarua land of the landlord but on perusal of the khatiyan the land in suit under khata no.1 relates to bakast land of zamindar. Further I have perused the Amin report(Ext. C) and find that there is a cutting in the area portion, there is no initial of anyone after cutting, and there is an overwriting in the area portion of plot no.229. I further perused the Ext. D i.e. plain hukumnama and find that in the boundary of plot no.229 there is no mentioning of name of Lato Mahto although as per the case of the defendant he is claiming the land under plot no.229 for an area measuring 0.32 acres only as according to him 0.2 acres of land was of Lato Yadav and he is in his boundary. I have perused the evidence of defendant Balo Yadav and find that this witness has clearly stated in examination in chief that in the Western portion of the suit land, land of Lato Yadav and he acquired the same from the then landlord so we claim only 0 .3 2 acres of land . As I have already 2026:JHHC:3487 13 stated in my preceding paragraph that Ext. D do not reflect the name of Lato Yadav in the boundary. At para 9 defendant has further admitted that his father had acquired the land from the landlord in the year 1941. I have already stated in my preceding paragraph that hukumnama is in the name of present defendant. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel of the respondent regarding the evidence of D.W.1. On perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 I find that D.W.1 is none-else rather the son of Lato Yadav and as per the case of the defendant his land is in the boundary of disputed land and this witness has stated at para 15 that he has no concerned with the suit land. 15. Now I am coming to the genuineness of rent receipts filed by the defendant. Defendant has filed two rent receipts i.e. year 1999 and one is of the year 2001. Both rent receipts have been proved by D.W.5. D.W.5 in his evidence stated that he cannot say the name of person who prepared the rent receipts. In his examination in chief he stated that it was written by Karamchari Rameshwar Mahto. 16. On careful scrutinizing the oral evidence and the documentary evidences of both the parties, I find that the case of the plaintiffs are more probable and worthy in comparison to the defendant. Plaintiff in support of oral settlement has brought Zamindari rent receipts and thereafter malgujari receipts. Register II has also been filed by the plaintiff. In comparison to the plaintiff defendant did not bring any zamindari receipts. Sada hukumnama and the Amin report do not seems to be a genuine paper in view of my discussion as above. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned trial court in which he decided that plaintiffs have subsisting right title, interest over the suit property and further learned trial court has rightly held that father of the plaintiffs Toki Mahto have got the aforesaid land on oral settlement from the landlord. 13. Arguments of the appellant (defendant) A. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule ‘B’ (Khata No.1) property. 2026:JHHC:3487 14 B. The suit property is in plot No. 229 area 34 decimals as described in Schedule ‘B’, a part of schedule ‘A’ property. As per the specific case of the plaintiff, the schedule ‘A’ property having total area 1.07 acres was settled by way of oral settlement in favour of predecessor in interest of the plaintiff. C. As per the plaint, Teki Mahto was the grandfather of the plaintiff, who had purchased 1.39 acres of land of Khata No. 2 by way of registered sale-deed no. 2173 dated 10.05.1944. His grandfather came in possession of the purchased property soon after purchase. At the same time, it has been asserted that it came to light that the vendor had only 10 decimals of land in plot no. 130 instead of 56 decimals, although 46 decimals of plot no. 130 in Khata no.2 was part of the registered sale-deed. D. It has also been asserted in the plaint that the vendor of the grandfather of the plaintiff had earlier sold 46 decimal of plot no. 130 to one Raghubir Mahto and consequently, out of 1.39 acres of land, the grandfather of the plaintiffs came in possession of only 93 decimals of land, although the registered sale-deed was for 1.39 acres. It has further been asserted that consequently the mutation in the office of the landlord pursuant to the registered sale-deed was confined only to 93 decimals of land. E. With respect to Khata No. 1, the case of the plaintiff is that his grandfather acquired some land from Khata No. 1 by virtue of oral settlement from the then landlord and it included property in plot nos. 51 and 229. The area of the settled land was 1.07 acres (73 decimal in plot no. 51 and 34 decimals in plot no. 229). The settled land is described in schedule-A of the plaint. It has been asserted that the annual rent of the aforesaid settled land (1.07 acres) and purchased land (93 decimals of land out of purchased area of 1.39 acres in plot no. 130) i.e., total area of 2 acres was fixed at Rs. 3/-. The schedule -B property consisted of 34 decimal of plot no. 229 which, as per the plaint, formed a part of settled land falling in Khata No. 1. 2026:JHHC:3487 15 F. Further case of the plaintiff is that Teki Mahto died leaving behind his two sons namely, Tokan Yadav and Khemchand Yadav who came in possession of schedule-A property. However, after the death of Teki Mahto, Tokan Yadav and Khemchand Yadav disrupted their mess and also partitioned the suit land in schedule-A and allotted their respective shares. G. In the partition, the land in schedule-B was allotted to the share of Tokan Yadav who amalgamated some area of plot no. 229 with his raiyati land under plot no. 225 which was adjacent to plot no. 229. H. After vesting of Zamindari, the revenue register-II of the village was prepared in the name of Teki Mahto with respect to only 2 acres of land. I. The plaintiff claimed that the rent with respect to schedule-B and other land was being regularly paid to the state of Bihar; Tokan Yadav died in the year 1988 leaving behind his three sons and they came in possession of the land including schedule-B property. It was asserted that the sons of Tokan Yadav constituted a joint family in which Dhalo Yadav being the elder brother was the Karta of the family. The plaintiff had also erected a brick compound over a portion of schedule-B property and has remained in continuous cultivating possession over schedule- B property for 12 years and has also acquired the title by adverse possession. J. The cause of action arose when on 20.06.2000, the defendant Balo Yadav came upon schedule-B land and sought to dispossess the plaintiff from schedule-B property and started denying the title of the plaintiff. K. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff prayed for adjudication of subsisting raiyati right and title over the suit land and sought a declaration to that effect. The plaintiff also sought confirmation of possession over the suit property and if found dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the 2026:JHHC:3487 16 case, it was prayed that Khas possession be restored to them. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction. 14. The defendant filed a written statement. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as under: - a) The defendant claimed only 32 decimals of plot no. 229. b) The defendant claimed that father of the defendant namely, Bhekhlal Mahto was coming in actual physical possession and as such, the ex-landlord, in the year 1941, out of total area of 1.50 acres, made settlement of 0.40 acre of land in favour of the defendant in plot no. 51 within a definite boundary and with detailed and described identity. Similarly, the ex-landlord namely Masodi Singh made settlement of 0.32 acre of land out of 0.34 acre in plot no. 229 in the name of the defendant by way of Sada Hukumnama in the year 1941. Thus, the defendant claimed to have acquired 0.72 acre of land of Khata No. 1 of village Mundro, Thana no. 82, Thana Bagodar. c) The defendant claimed 0.40 acre of land in plot 51 and 0.32 acre of land in plot no. 229 by virtue of sada settlement from the ex-landlord namely Masodi Singh, total being 0.72 acre. d) The defendant also claimed that the father of the defendant got the land measured with the help of Amin and accordingly, Fard report of Amin was prepared on 14.04.1942 and the answering defendant had become tenant of the ex-landlord and paid rent after vesting. Consequently, he became the recorded tenant of the State and had been paying rent regularly, which has also been duly recorded in Register-II of the State. It was also asserted that the defendant came in actual physical possession of the entire 0.72 acres including 0.32 acres which formed a part of the schedule-B property. It was also asserted that 0.02 acres of land in plot no. 229 was in actual physical possession of one Lato Yadav, a co-sharer of the defendant. Thus, the defendant disputed the title and possession of the property with respect to 0.32 acre of land of plot no. 229 out of 0.34 acre of plot no. 229 of schedule-B of the plaint. 2026:JHHC:3487 17 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not in dispute that the registered sale-deed of the year 1944 in favour of grandfather of the plaintiff was for 1.39 acres, but the learned 1st appellate court has confined the sale-deed only to 0.93 acres and has included the area of khata no. 1 to make up total area of 2 acres as claimed by the plaintiff. He has submitted that in absence of any registered sale-deed in favour of Raghubir Mahto, as claimed by the plaintiff in their plaint itself, stating that 46 decimals of land was transferred in favour of Raghubir Mahto, the area covered by the registered sale-deed of the year 1944 could not have been reduced and confined only to 93 decimals. He submits that the learned 1st appellate court has committed perversity while recording such a finding. The learned counsel has submitted that the registered document has a presumption of correctness. 16. With respect to the 1st substantial question of law framed vide order dated 13.11.2019, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Exhibit-4 and 4/1, which is the certified copy of the Register-II and produced by the plaintiffs, has been taken into consideration, but Exhibit-A which is also the certified copy of Register-II has not been taken into consideration by the learned 1st appellate court and therefore the impugned judgment is perverse. The learned counsel has submitted that Exhibit-4 and 4/1 is the entry in favor of Teki Yadav, the ancestor of the plaintiffs, and exhibit-A is the entry in the name of the defendant Balo Yadav. 17. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the earliest rent receipt, which the defendant had produced in the present case, is of the year 1999. The defendant had produced two rent receipts i.e. Exhibit- B and B/1. Exhibit-B was issued in the year 2001 and Exhibit-B/1 was issued on 17.06.1999. Admittedly, the defendant has not produced any rent receipt prior to this period not even zamindari rent receipt. 18. It further transpired that there is a conflict in entry in Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-A. In Exhibit-A, the entry has been shown in favour of the defendant to the extent of- 0.72 acres in khata no. 1 2026:JHHC:3487 18 [ 0.32 acres in plot no. 229 0.40 acres in plot no. 51] and it was the specific case of the defendant that they had acquired this property by way of Hukumnama way back in the year 1941. 19. So far as Exhibit-4 is concerned, the same was produced by the plaintiffs, which was in the name of the ancestor of the plaintiffs, namely, Teki Yadav and the bifurcation of the property has been mentioned therein as plot no. 130 area 0.10 acres; plot no. 175 area 0.32 acre; plot no. 185 area 0.16 acre; plot no. 204 area 0.35 acre; plot no. 229 area 0.34 acre plot no. 51 area 0.73 acre and the plaintiffs had produced the rent receipts issued by the zamindar to the extent of 2 acres and also rent receipt issued by the State right from the year 1957. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the zamindari rent receipt did not give the bifurcation of 2 acres and therefore there was no basis to have the bifurcation in Register-II. However, it is further not in dispute during the course of argument that Exhibit-4, though is in conflict with Exhibit-A, but Exhibit-4 is prior in point of time as the plaintiffs had produced rent receipt right from the year 1956 also. 21. The learned counsel submits that Exhibit-A has not been discussed by the learned 1st appellate court and Exhibit-4 has been believed and therefore the impugned judgment calls for interference. Arguments of the respondents on the 1st substantial question of law 22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the Hukumnama, which was the basis of the claim of the defendant, has been completely rejected by the learned court by citing numerous reasons including the fact that the defendant was just 10 years of age 2026:JHHC:3487 19 in the year 1941. He has submitted that no substantial question of law has been framed in connection with the finding of rejection rejecting the claim of the defendant on the basis of Hukumnama of the year 1941. 23. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Hukumnama was not even followed by any rent receipt and all of a sudden in the year 1999, for the first time, the rent receipt has been issued in favour of the defendant. The learned counsel submits that Exhibit-4, admittedly being prior in point of time, which also gives the details of the bifurcation at the back of Exhibit-3/a, in such circumstances, Exhibit-4 would prevail. He submits that neither any circumstances nor any order has been placed on record by the defendant as to how their name has been entered in Register-II. There is no order deleting the name of the plaintiff in Register-II and therefore any such entry in Exhibit-A has to be discarded. Rejoinder of the appellant on the 1st substantial question of law 24. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that merely because at the back of Exhibit-3/a, the details of the property has been mentioned, it is not clear as to how the entry has been made at the backside of the rent receipt. Arguments of the appellant on the 2nd substantial question of law 25. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sale deed dated 10.05.1944 (Exhibit-1) was for 1.39 acres of land and the plaintiffs suo-moto claimed that the vendor had only 10 decimals of land although 56 decimals of land was mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed with respect to khata no. 2 plot no. 130 and has suo-moto deducted the claim in khata no. 2 plot no. 130 from 56 decimals mentioned therein to only 10 decimals. 26. Further, the plaintiffs also claimed oral settlement followed by zamindari rent receipts to the extent of 1.07 acres of land in khata no. 1 and the bifurcation is, plot no. 51 area 73 decimals and plot no. 229 area 34 decimals. The learned counsel submits that since the 2026:JHHC:3487 20 zamindari rent receipt was issued to the extent of 2 acres, the plaintiffs deducted the area from plot no. 130 of khata no. 2 and tried to adjust it in the aforesaid two plots of khata no. 1. 27. The learned counsel submits that such deduction was not permissible in absence of any registered sale deed in connection with 46 decimals of land which the plaintiff claimed to have been transferred to a 3rd party and the vendor had only 10 decimals instead of 56 decimals of land in plot no. 130 khata no. 2 as mentioned in the sale deed dated 10.05.1944. The learned counsel submits that in absence of sale deed in connection with 46 decimals of land in plot no. 130, khata no. 2, the title with respect to the suit property could not have been declared in favour of the plaintiffs. 28. During the course of hearing, it transpired that if the entire area of sale deed dated 10.05.1944 is taken into consideration read with zamindari rent receipt for 2 acres of land, then also the remaining area with respect to khata no. 1, which may be available to the plaintiffs, is to the extent of 61 decimals. 29. The plaintiffs has claimed title in khata no. 2 vide sale deed of the year 1944 and further settlement in khata no. 1 which was said to be orally settled by the zamindar followed by zamindari rent receipt. 30. The learned counsel has submitted that the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish his case and merely because the Hukumnama of the defendant was disbelieved, the same will not be a reason to allow the case in favour of the plaintiffs. Arguments of the respondents on the 2nd substantial question of law 31. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that non-production of sale deed in connection with khata no. 2, plot no. 130, area 46 decimals as claimed by the plaintiffs to have been actually transferred by the vendor by the execution of the sale deed dated 10.05.1944 has no bearing in this case, inasmuch as, the suit property is relating to khata no. 1 and in particular plot no. 229 area 34 decimals. 32. The learned counsel has referred to the written statement of the defendant, paragraph 13, and has submitted that the defendant claimed 2026:JHHC:3487 21 that the ex-landlord has made settlement of 0.40 acres of land in plot no. 51 and 0.32 acres out of 34 decimals of land in plot no. 229 in the name of the defendant by virtue of Sada Hukumnama. 33. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is not in dispute that the total area of plot no. 229 was 34 decimals and the defendant was claiming only 32 decimals in plot no. 229 on the basis of Sada Hukumnama. He submits that the Sada Hukumnama has been fully disbelieved and therefore the defendant has no role to play. He has further submitted that even the possession with respect to the suit property has been found in favour of the plaintiffs and the possession has been confirmed. No substantial question of law has been framed in connection with the said finding recorded by the learned 1st appellate court. 34. The learned counsel has submitted that non-production of the sale deed in connection with 46 decimals of land in plot no. 130 does not make the findings recorded by the learned 1st appellate court perverse in any manner. Findings of this Court 35. It is not in dispute that Masaudhi Singh was the Ex-landlord of khata no. 1 of Mouza: Mundro. Dispute in between parties is with respect to land under plot no.229 in khata no. 1. As per the case of the plaintiffs their father took oral settlement of bakast land of area measuring 73 decimals in plot no.51 and area measuring 0.34 acres in plot no.229 from the Ex-landlord Masaudhi Singh in the year 1945 followed by rent receipts. On the other hand, it was the case of the defendant that he took settlement of land of an area measuring 0.32 acres in plot no. 229 apart from the other lands by virtue of Sada hukumnama in the year 1941 and Fard Amin Report was prepared. 36. The 1st substantial question of law revolves around register II of khata no.1, plot no. 34 and 51 and the concerned exhibits are exhibit- 4 and 4/1 and exhibit-A. This property relates to sada hukumnamas as relied upon by the parties and the bone of contention was plot no. 229 in khata no.1. 2026:JHHC:3487 22 The 2nd substantial question of law is relating to non-production of sale deed relating to 46 decimals of land in plot no. 130 in khata no. 2. Case of the plaintiff is that the vendor of registered sale deed of 1944 sold 56 decimals of land in plot no. 130 but only 46 decimals of land was available for sale as 46 decimals were already sold and consequently what remained was only 10 decimals of land in plot no. 130 and rent was reduced and paid only to that extent. 37. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that Exhibit-4 and 4/1 are the certified copy of register-II in the name of Teki Yadav (ancestor of the plaintiff) and Exhibit-A is the certified copy of Register-II in the name of Balo Yadav (defendant). 38. There is conflict between Exhibit-4 and 4/1 and Exhibit-A. In Exhibit-A, the property to the extent of 32 decimals in plot no. 229 has been shown in the name of Balo Yadav (defendant) and in Exhibit-4 and 4/1, the property to the extent of 34 decimals in plot no. 229 has been shown in the name of the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The exhibits as well as the order-sheet reveal that the exhibits of the plaintiffs were marked without any objection. Exhibit-A has also been marked without any objection. 39. The perusal of the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court reveals that Exhibit-4 and 4/1 has been taken into consideration, but Exhibit-A has not been specifically referred to while recording the findings. However, from the records of this case, it is revealed that that the plaintiffs have not only filed Exhibit-4 and 4/1 which is the certified copy of Register-II showing entry in connection with description of property, but they have also filed Exhibit-3/a in which at the backside, the breakup of area of various plot numbers constituting 2 acres of land of the plaintiff has been recorded which, inter-alia, records 34 decimals of land in plot no. 229. This Court also finds that even in the rent receipt issued on 25.03.1999, similar break- up has been mentioned. The plaintiffs have also exhibited zamindari rent receipts showing payment of rent of 2 acres, but in the zamindari rent receipts break-up with respect to each plot is not mentioned. 2026:JHHC:3487 23 However, the plaintiffs have also brought on record the rent receipts issued by the State, the earliest being of the year 1956 after vesting of zamindari, where the plaintiffs have been recognized as raiyats by the State. The defendant has produced the earliest rent receipt of the year 1999 and then of the year 2001. No rent receipt prior to this period, either issued by the zamindar or issued by the State, has been produced by the defendant and there is nothing on record as to how rent receipt was issued in favour of the defendant for the first time in the year 1999. However, the defendant is claiming the property on the basis of sada hukumnama issued by the zamindar and also claimed that rent receipt was issued by the zamindar but no such rent receipts have been exhibited. The learned courts have disbelieved the sada hukumnama of the year 1941 of the defendant by citing reasons including that the defendant was only 10 years of age at that point of time . 40. It is not in dispute during the course of argument that the entry in Register-II, so far as the defendant is concerned, the issuance of rent receipt to the defendant is much after the entry in Register-II, earliest one is of the year 1999. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the entry in Register-II of the plaintiffs is accompanied with issuance of rent receipts in the year 1956. Neither any order has been brought on record on behalf of the defendant nor it is their case that at any point of time entry of the plaintiffs in the record of rights with respect to various plots including 34 decimals in plot no. 229 has been deleted or altered by any order. Apart from this the plaintiff has also produced zamindari rent receipts issued prior to vesting. 41. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the entry in record of rights in favour of the plaintiffs was already made vide Exhibit-4 and 4/1, the subsequent entry in the record of rights in favour of the defendant vide Exhibit-A has no value in the eyes of law. This is over and above the fact that the defendant is claiming their right, title and interest with respect to 32 decimals of plot no. 229 solely on account of Sada Hukumnama of the year 1941. It is not in dispute during the course of hearing that plot no. 2026:JHHC:3487 24 229 had total area of 34 decimals. The learned courts by their concurrent findings in connection with the same have completely discarded the Sada Hukumnama by citing numerous reasons and no substantial question of law has been framed in connection with such reasons for rejection of the claim of the defendant. This Court is of the considered view that once the Sada Hukumnama of the appellant (defendant) has been conclusively held to be not reliable, forged and fabricated, then under such circumstances, the claim of the defendant based on Exhibit-A has no relevance at all. 42. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that merely because Exhibit-A has not been specifically mentioned while recording the finding by the learned 1st appellate court, the same has no material bearing in this matter. 43. This Court also finds that the learned courts have recorded a finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and no substantial question of law has been framed in connection with such finding. Accordingly, the finding of the learned courts that, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and were entitled to a decree of confirmation of possession, is also not the matter of dispute in this second appeal. 44. The 1st substantial question of law as framed is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. 2nd substantial question of law. 45. This Court finds that with respect to the purchased property , the specific case of the plaintiffs was that their ancestor Teki Yadav had purchased 1.39 acres of land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 10.05.1944 and at the same time, they pleaded that in the sale deed, it was mentioned 56 decimals of plot no. 130, but the vendor only had 10 decimals and consequently Teki Mahto acquired possession only with respect to 93 decimals out of 1.39 acres in khata no.2 plot no. 130. It was their further case that 46 decimals of plot no. 130 was sold to another person, namely, Raghuvir Mahto by the vendor. Admittedly, the sale deed in favour of Raghuvir Mahto has not been exhibited. It was further case of plaintiffs that the reduced 2026:JHHC:3487 25 available area measuring 93 decimals instead of 1.39 acres (as 46 decimals were already sold) in khata no. 2 was duly entered in the office of the landlord of the village and the rent was also accordingly reduced. This all happened in connection with khata no. 2. 46. Further, with respect to Khata no. 1, it was their case that by virtue of oral settlement land comprising of plot nos. 51 and 229 area 73 decimals and 34 decimals respectively was settled in favour of Teki Yadav. 47. Teki Yadav paid rent for total 2 acres of land [i.e 93 decimals khata no.2 (purchased land) + 73 decimals of plot no. 51 in khata no. 1(acquired through hukumnama) + 34 decimals in plot no. 229 in khata no. 1(acquired through hukumnama)] and in this way the landlord granted rent receipt for total area of 2 acres of the aforesaid land . It was their further case that upon vesting of zamindari, the plaintiffs were recognized as raiyats in connection with aforesaid 2 acres of land whose details have been mentioned in Exhibit-4 and the break-up reveals that the property in connection with plot no. 229 was to the extent of 34 decimals, with respect to plot no. 51, it was 73 decimals and the remaining property under different plot numbers totaling 93 decimals relating to their purchase vide registered sale deed dated 10.05.1944 has also been specifically entered. 48. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the plaintiffs have not exhibited the sale deed in connection with 46 decimals of land under plot no. 130 khata no. 2, which was subject matter of purchase by Teki Mahto vide registered sale deed of the year 1944, the same has no bearing in the present case and merely because the rent receipt issued by the zamindar did not give the breakup of the land in different plots and khatas , the same also has no bearing in the matter. 49. The State upon vesting of zamindari has duly recognized the right of the plaintiffs and specific entry was made relating to each portion of the property which is matching with the claim of the plaintiffs and the defendant has miserably failed to prove their right, title, interest and possession with respect to the suit property based on 2026:JHHC:3487 26 Sada Hukumnama which has been held to be forged and fabricated by both the courts and admittedly the defendant was 10 years of age on the date of alleged Sada Hukumnama in his name . 50. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while answering 2nd substantial question of law, this Court holds that the learned 1st appellate court while recording and upholding the claim of the plaintiffs in connection with registered sale deed of the year 1944 only to the extent of 0.93 acre in khata no. 2 has not committed any perversity in spite of non-production of prior sale deed relating to 46 decimals of land to a third party by the vendor of the ancestor of the plaintiff with respect to plot no. 130 in khata no.2 . The plaintiffs did not claim any portion of the 46 decimals of land which accordingly to them was already sold by the vendor and claimed only 10 decimals of land in plot no. 130 in khata no.2 inspite of the fact that 56 decimals of plot no. 130 in khata no.2 was mentioned in their sale deed and the connected rent receipts with respect to 2 acres comprising of purchased land in khata no.2 and land acquired through hukumnama of the year 1944 relating to khata no.1 was duly proved. The defendant as per their written statement was claiming 40 decimals of land in plot no. 51 and 0.32 decimals of land in plot no. 229 both under khata no.1 and they completely failed to prove their title through hukumnama and did not claim any portion of land of khata no.2 plot no. 130. The relevant portions of the concurrent findings of the learned courts have already been quoted above. 51. The 2nd substantial question of law is accordingly decided against the appellant and in favor of the respondents. 52. In view of the aforesaid findings, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 53. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 54. Vide order dated 06.02.2026, adjournment was granted to the appellant subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited before the Registry of this Court and subsequently, the cost was directed to be remitted to the respondents in their bank account. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the cost of Rs. 2026:JHHC:3487 27 10,000/- has been deposited. Learned counsel for the respondents has furnished the details of the bank account of the respondent No. 4, which is taken on record. Office is directed to remit the cost deposited by the appellant in the following bank account: - Account No. 33085515881 Account Holder Name Jagdish Yadav Bank Name State Bank of India Branch Isri, Giridih IFSC SBIN0012546 Account Type Savings 55. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 10.02.2026 Mukul Uploaded On: 18.05.2026