( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 603 of 2017 1. Laltu Rawani 2. Santu Rawani 3. Ramu Rawani, All sons of Gobardhan Rawani, All resident of Namupara, Post Jamtara, P.S. Jamtara, Sub-division and District Jamtara. Plaintiffs/ Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Umapada Jha s/o Late Motilal Jha, 2. Pushpa Devi w/o Srikanta @ Babukant Jha, D/o Late Kashinath Jha, resident of village Sarath, Post -Ganda, P.S.-Sarath, District-Deoghar. 3. Bhuchki Devi @ Jyotsna Jha w/o Pradip Pattralekh D/o Late Kashinath Jha, resident of village- Kushmaha, Post- Sarwan, P.S. Sarwa, District-Deoghar. 4. Rani Devi w/o Parmananda Pathak, D/o Late Kashinath Jha, resident of village Pathak Charpa, Post & P.S.-Mohanpur, District -Deoghar. 5. Lakkhi Devi w/o Pankaj Jha, D/o Late Kashinath Jha, Resident of village Lakkhi Bazar, Post- Pathrol, P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar. 6. Anita Jha w/o Kashinath Jha. 7. Sashi Bhusan Jha, @ Sashinath Jha. Son of Late Motilal Jha. 8. Jaidep Jha, @Jaidev Jha s/o Umapada Jha. 9. Sanjiv Jha s/o Umapada Jha. 10. Tapan Jha s/o Late Kashinath Jha. 11. Sagar Mohan Jha, @ Sagar Jha s/o Late Kashinath Jha. 12. Uttam Jha s/o Sashi Bhushan Jha, @ Sashinath Jha, Respondent No.1 and 6 to 12 are resident of Namupara, Post Jamtara, P.S.-Jamtara, Sub-division and District-Jamtara. …. Defendant 1st party/Appellant/Respondents 13. Circle Officer, Jamtara, Post-Jamtara, P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara. … Defendant 2nd party/proforma Respondents/proforma respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate : Mrs. Shobha Rani, Advocate --- 06/09.02.2026 This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2017 (decree signed on 08.11.2017) passed by Principal District Judge, Jamtara, in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016, whereby the learned 1st appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. ( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) 2 2. The trial court’s judgment and decree are dated 28.07.2016 (decree signed on 12.08.2016) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)- II, Jamtara, in Title Suit No. 79 of 2003, whereby the learned trial court has partly decreed the suit on contest and right, title and interest of the plaintiffs have been declared over the suit land. 3. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession with respect to the suit land. Case of the plaintiffs:- 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that A.K.J. No. 196 of mouza Jamtara is recorded in the name of Bhiku Kahar, who was grand father of plaintiffs and died in the year 1966, the plaintiffs are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Father of the plaintiff Gobardhan Rowani was an old man aged about 66 years He was unable to move freely. Plaintiffs are peacefully possessing the above land and grown maiz, Arhar etc. over the said lands. In the year 1968 a well has been constructed from the government scheme for irrigation purpose on the suit land. Defendants had got no concern over the suit land and they have formed a group in the village with the local influential persons. This year in the month of February defendants tried to grab the land by deceitful means. The plaintiffs have filed an application for proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C and after filing application by the plaintiffs, defendants gained over the local police and report was not submitted. Plaintiff have paid rent of the suit land till 2002-03 and Khatian Register-II was running in the name of Bhiku Kahar. This year plaintiffs demanded for rent receipt for the year 2003-04, then knew the facts that name of defendants was inserted by virtue of a collusive decree passed in Title Suit No. 22/1968 by the court of Subordinate Judge and Mutation case No. 225/1969-70. Defendants on the basis of forged document trying to grab the land of the plaintiffs. The said land are Jamabandi agricultural non-transferable lands and it cannot be transferred by any means. The plaintiffs are the original owner of the suit land, hence it is necessary to declare the right title and interest of ( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) 3 the suit land in favour of plaintiffs or alternatively for recovery of possession. 5. Cause of action for the suit arose on 10.10.2003, when the defendants have showed a collusive Title Suit order and fake mutation paper in Anchal office and Anchal office wrongly incorporated the name of defendants in Register-II. The valuation of the suit land are 1230-60 paisa and is situated in the local jurisdiction of this Court, So the plaintiff claims for the following reliefs: (1) A decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring their right title and interest over the suit lands. (ii) Confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession in regard to suit lands in favour of plaintiffs. (iii) Temporary injunction as well as permanent injunction not to make any construction over the suit lands till the disposal of the suit. (iv) Cost of the suit. (v) Any other relief or reliefs which the court think fit and proper for the decision of the suit. Case of the defendants: - 6. Defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The written statement in brief is that the suit as framed and filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is barred by limitation, estoppal, acquiescence, waiver and also barred by principle of res- judicate. The suit is hit by non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Assertion as made in para-1 of the plaint is not known to the defendants. Averment of para-2 is matter of record. Genealogical table as given in para 3 of the plaint is not complete and correct. Father of the plaintiff was running a sweet shop, So, para- 4 of the plaint is wrong. With some ulterior motive the plaintiffs have with hold the Gobardhan Rawani from the suit Para-5 of the plaint is false and denied as plaintiff are not the sole heir of Bhikhu Kahar and they have never succeeded plot No. 1666 having an area of 51 decimals. Assertion regarding peaceful possession over the said 51 decimals of land is false and denied by the defendants. Bhikhu Kahar long long ( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) 4 ago prior to passing of S.P.T Act 1949 had permanently transferred the suit land in favour of Motilal Jha and Motilal Jha came into peaceful possession over the land and mud built compound, well was also constructed by him and he used to grow vegetables. In the year 1968 from the Govt. scheme a well was also dug in that plot. Father of the plaintiffs have filed a suit bearing Title suit No. 22/1968 before Sub Judge Jamtara against Motilal Ojha @ Jha and in that suit Gobardhan Rowani had compounded the suit and decree was prepared. Para-7, 8, 9 of the plaint is denied. After disposal of Title suit 22/1968 defendant's father Motilal Jha got his name mutated in the landlord Sherita in Mutation case no 25/1969-70 and Jamabandi has been splited. Defendants have not played any fraud. The mutation was known to Gobardhan Rowani, as such he is not forth coming. In reply of para-13 of the plaint the defendants submits that as Motilal Ojha entered into possession over the suit land and became rightful owner long long ago. So it perfected his prescriptive title through adverse possession. Moreover Gobardhan Rowani about 35 years ago tried to disturb the possession of Motilal Ojha, but he failed and accepted the right, title and interest as well as possession of Motilal Ojha. So, the present suit is hit by principle of res-judicata and also barred by estoppal. There is no any ingredient to pass injunction. Para- 15 is not correct and it is denied. Plaintiffs have got no right title and interest over the suit land and plaintiffs are not entitled for recovery of any type of possession. Date as mentioned at para 16 of the plaint is for cause of action of the suit is imaginary one and the suit land has been arbitrarily valued and actually the suit value is Rs. 23/- and this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same. Boundary wall, well and other things have been wrongly added to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as claimed and suit is fit to be dismissed with cost. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that while reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the learned 1st appellate court has failed to consider that the lands are non transferable lands as per Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy ( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) 5 (Supplementary Provisions) Act and therefore the transfer was a fraudulent transfer against the statute. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in LPA No. 571 of 2019 and has submitted that a compromise decree with respect to the property covered under Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act amounts to fraud on statute. He submits that the same principle applies in the present case covered under Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act. The learned counsel submits that since the transfer was fraud on statute, therefore the learned 1st appellate court was not justified in setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the observation made by the learned 1st appellate court wherein the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1976 BLJR. Patna 15 has been referred wherein it has been held that a transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Act will not cease to be so only because the parties have agreed in a compromise and it will be nothing but a fraud on the statute. However, in spite of having observed as aforesaid, the learned court was of the view that the matter should have been raised by the plaintiffs against the decree passed by the Additional Sub Judge in Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 but no appeal against the same was preferred. The learned court also recorded that the plaintiffs have not raised any objection with regard to the compromise decree passed by the court in Title Suit No. 22 of 1968. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there is a provision of limitation of 30 years as per Section 65 of the Limitation Act which has been amended by making it applicable to Santhal Pargana areas, but the same will have no applicability in the present case as the compromise itself is fraudulent in nature. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this court finds that it is not in dispute that with respect to the same property and between the same parties or their predecessor in interest, there was a Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 filed which ended in a compromise on 09.07.1968 during the life time of the father of the plaintiffs, who had entered into a compromise. The present plaintiffs are three sons of ( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) 6 Gobardhan Rawani and they had filed Title Suit No. 79 of 2003 seeking a declaration of their right, title and interest as well confirmation of possession or in the alternative, recovery of possession of the suit property. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 was a collusive decree and it was admitted that their father was alive about 66 years and it was asserted that he being an old man was unable to manage the property. 9. The defendants have filed their written statement and asserted that the suit was barred by limitation, estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and res-judicata. They asserted that the recorded tenant namely Bhikhu Kahar had permanently transferred the suit land in favour of Motilal Jha who came in possession and the father of the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 before Sub Judge, Jamtara and after disposal of the suit, compromise decree was prepared and the defendant’s father got his name mutated in Mutation Case No. 225/1969-70 and Jamabandi was split up. The defendants have not played any fraud. The father of the plaintiffs tried to disturb their possession 35 years ago but has failed and accepted the right, title and interest as well as possession of the defendants. 10. The learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences and observed that the compromise decree was made on 09.07.1968 and after obtaining compromise decree, the land was mutated in the name of defendants and they were paying rent. If date of decree is taken, even than the land cannot be transferred and observed that Order XXIII Rule 3 A of CPC is not applicable. However, the court observed that there is joint right, title and interest over the suit property of the plaintiffs and since the plaintiffs have not made party to all the heirs and successors of the recorded tenant, so their possession cannot be declared or possession cannot be recovered by the process of court. After having declared as aforesaid, the suit was partly decreed. 11. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the following points were framed for adjudication which are as under: - ( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) 7 (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver and res-judicata? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and recovery for possession for the suit land? (v) Whether the defendants have acquired right, title interest over the suit land? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs? 12. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the oral and documentary evidences on record and recorded a finding in paragraph 12 that the documentary evidences placed on record revealed that Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 filed by the father of the plaintiffs was compromised by him i.e. Gobardhan Rawani and subsequently the suit land was mutated in the name of Motilal Jha and recorded that the same was in possession of the defendants. The court also recorded that since the Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 filed by Gobardhan Rawani was decreed on the basis of compromise on 09.07.1968, at that point of time, with respect to three plaintiffs i.e. Santu Rawani and Ramu Rawani were not even born and the third plaintiff was only two years old in the year 1968. The court also recorded that there was no evidence on record in support of the fact that transfer was made fraudulently and also recorded that the decree of compromise was passed on 09.07.1968 but the same was not challenged by the plaintiffs and was of the view that the same was binding on the parties. The court also observed that the compromise is void or voidable but it is required to be set aside by filing a suit within the period of limitation. The court then observed that in the instant case, the plaintiffs were not party to the Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 and no appeal was preferred by them within the limitation period. The court also recorded that there was nothing on record to show that the decree was obtained by fraud and ultimately the court held that the plaintiffs having not challenged the compromise decree within the period of limitation, the same was binding on the parties. ( 2026:JHHC:3618 ) 8 13. It is undisputed fact on record that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 22 of 1968 dated 09.07.1968 was never challenged by the father of the plaintiffs who was alive at the time of filing of the suit and admittedly he is not even a party to the proceedings and his three sons filed the suit alleging that compromise decree was fraudulently obtained. Admittedly, the suit itself was filed beyond the period of 30 years. Further, the parties claimed that they are governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law and thus they are neither tribals nor aboriginals. This court finds that the learned 1st appellate Court has considered all the materials available on record while reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court. This court is of the view that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly set aside the judgment of the trial court and there is no substantial question of law involved in this case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 15. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09/02/2026 Uploaded on: 23.05.2026 Binit