2026:JHHC:2496 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 384 of 2019 1. Smt. Padda Mahtain, aged about 68 years, widow of Late Kalipada Mahto 2. Ajit Mahato, aged about 53 years, 3. Kisto Mahato, aged about 54 years 4. Laltu Mahato, aged about 30 years Nos. 2 to 4, sons of Late Kalipada Mahato All are residents of Kalipahari, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants -Versus- 1. Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), represented by the Chief Engineer (C), Office: At & P.O.-Maithon Dam, P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad … … Principal Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 2. Atul Mahato 3. Haradhan Mahato Both sons of Late Nakul Mahato, residents of Kalipahari, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad … … Proforma Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 19/29th January 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.08.2019 (decree sealed and signed on 29.08.2019) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2018, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 17.11.2017 (Decree sealed and signed on 30.11.2017) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 08 of 2007 has been affirmed. The learned trial court has dismissed the suit. 2026:JHHC:2496 2 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs have lost in both the courts, but still a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 71, C.S. Plot No. 1462, area 21 decimals and C.S. Plot No. 1463 area 13 decimals (Exhibit- 3) was recorded in C.S. record of rights in the name of Banshi Mahato, S/o Late Dinu Mahato and Budhu Mahato, S/o Late Beni Mahato. The learned counsel has further submitted that Lilu Mahato and Nakul Mahato were the sister’s son of the recorded raiyat Banshi Mahato, who used to live in the house of Banshi Mahato alongwith their mother, namely, Rasna Mahtain and said Banshi Mahato orally gifted the Schedule-A property to his aforesaid Bhaginas (sister’s sons) , namely, Lilu Mahato and Nakul Mahato and as such they were in peaceful possession of the Schedule-A land and in the remarks column of Exhibit-3, their name was mentioned with respect to C.S. Plot No. 1462 and 1463. 5. The learned counsel submits that while in possession, Nakul Mahato (bhagina of Banshi Mahato) died leaving behind three sons, namely, Atul Mahato, Kalipada Mahato and Haradhan Mahato, who were defendant no. 2, original plaintiff and defendant no. 3 respectively before the learned trial court. Similarly, Lilu Mahato ( other bhagina of Banshi Mahato) also died leaving behind his only son Kashinath Mahato who inherited the Schedule-A property and sold his half share to Kalipada Mahato, S/o Late Nakul Mahato vide registered sale deed No. 9462 dated 11.04.1978 and said Kalipada Mahato (the original plaintiff) came in possession over Schedule-A property with his two brothers who were proforma defendant nos. 2 and 3. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that that in the recent revisional survey operation, portion of CS Plot No. 1462 and 1463 under C.S. Khata No. 71 was recorded as R.S. Plot No. 1095 and 1096 respectively under R.S. Khata No. 30 and a draft record of right was prepared in the name of 2026:JHHC:2496 3 Kalipada Mahato (the original plaintiff). The description of the aforesaid land has been given in Schedule-B of the plaint. 7. Against the said entry of the plaintiff’s name in the draft record of right, the defendant no. 1 i.e. Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) filed an application under Section 89 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (CNT Act) before the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, which was registered as Case No. 18266/1997 and the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad allowed the said application in favor of the defendant no. 1 vide order dated 05.08.2005 and consequently, the plaintiff had filed the Title Suit No. 08/2007. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the defendant no. 1 i.e. Damodar Valley Corporation filed their written statement stating that the plaintiffs had no valid cause of action and the suit was barred under the provision of CNT Act. It was asserted in the written statement that the land in question was acquired by the DVC in L.A. Case No. 01/1950-51 and the compensation was paid to the recorded raiyat-Nakul Mahato (father of the original plaintiff) vide voucher no. 129 dated 06.06.1952. It was also asserted that the plaintiffs were contesting the suit on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.04.1978, but the plaintiffs never challenged the order before any competent court. The title of the plaintiffs on the basis of the sale deed dated 1.04.1978 was disputed. 9. The learned counsel submits that the defendant 1st party did not adduce any documentary evidence to support their claim and further only one witness was examined as DW-1, but he was not cross-examined and therefore his statement was not read as evidence. 10. The learned counsel submits that the entire case was decided in absence of any evidence from the side of the contesting defendant i.e. DVC. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court had decided issue nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs, but the learned 1st appellate court has reversed the finding without any cross-objection or cross-appeal from the side of the contesting defendant. The learned counsel submits 2026:JHHC:2496 4 that such an approach by the learned 1st appellate court is not permissible under law. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, who has given the factual background from the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking a declaration of right, title interest and possession with respect to Schedule-B property in favor of the plaintiffs alongwith the proforma defendants and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 (Damodar Valley Corporation- DVC) from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants over the lands described in Schedule-B of the pliant. 12. The defendant no. 1 had filed the written statement stating that the disputed land was acquired vide notification dated 18.04.1951 and that the DVC had filed a case under Section 89 of the CNT Act for rectification and correction of record of rights which was decided in favor of the defendant no. 1 vide order dated 05.08.2005 and that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant nos. 2 and 3 were not in possession of the acquired land of plot no. 1462 and 1463 of khata no. 71 and R.S. plot no. 1095 and 1096, area 24 decimals of Kalipahari Mouza. 13. The defendant no. 2 had also filed his written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. 14. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: - “1. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is maintainable in the present form? 2. Whether plaintiff has valid cause of action in the present suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit land as described in Schedule-B land? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs as prayed by him?” 15. The learned trial court decided issue nos. 1 and 2 in favor of the plaintiffs by observing that in spite of the fact that the application under Section 89 of the CNT Act was decided in favor of the DVC vide order 2026:JHHC:2496 5 dated 05.08.2005, the suit seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession was not barred under Section 258 of the CNT Act. 16. So far as issue nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the learned trial court considered the materials on record and recorded that the plaintiff has filed the suit to establish that he has title over the Schedule-B land and has pleaded that Lilu Mahato and Nakul Mahato were the Bhaginas in sisterly relation of the recorded raiyat Banshi Mahato who used to live in the house of Banshi Mahato alongwith their mother, namely, Rasna Mahtian and it was the case of the plaintiff that before Cadastral Survey Operation of record of rights, the recorded raiyat Banshi Mahato had orally gifted the Schedule-A property to his aforesaid Bhaginas, namely, Lilu Mahato and Nakul Mahato and they were in possession of the Schedule-A property. The learned trial court further recorded that it was pleaded that Nakul Mahato died leaving behind three sons, namely, Atul Mahato, Kalipada Mahato and Haradhan Mahato and similarly Nakul Mahato died leaving behind one son, namely, Kashinath Mahato and consequently they inherited the Schedule-A property and came in peaceful possession. Further, it was also pleaded that Kashinath Mahato had sold the Schedule- A property to the extent of his share to the original plaintiff-Kalipada Mahato, S/o Nakul Mahato vide registered sale deed dated 11.04.1978 and delivered the possession in favor of the original plaintiff and thus the original plaintiff alongwith the proforma defendants have become the absolute owners with respect to Schedule-A land. 17. The learned trial court thereafter referred to the provision of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act and recorded that the plaintiff claimed that he received Schedule-A land by oral gift, but oral gift of immovable properties is invalid in law until and unless it is in writing and registered. The learned trial court ultimately decided issue no. 3 and 4 against the plaintiff. The finding is as follows: - “……………………………………………………………………….. ..………………………………………………………………………. 2026:JHHC:2496 6 In the present suit the Plaintiff himself claims that schedule A land was transferred to him orally. There is no gift deed. The plaintiff had possession over aforesaid land but he had no title. There is no deed executed in his favour. The plaintiff failed to prove his right, title and interest over Schedule A and B land. He has examined four witnesses P.W.-1,2,3 &4. The P.W. 1 & 2 have supported his possession over schedule A & Schedule B land but there is no oral evidence in support his title to the aforesaid land. In fact Title cannot be proved by oral evidence. For proving Title it has to show the roots from where it emerged and how it was acquired by him. The plaintiff claims that he received Schedule A land by oral gifts. But oral gift of immovable properties is invalid in law until and unless it is in writing registered. All of them has supported his claim for possession. But his claim of title, right and interest is not established. He has stated in his arguments that defendants failed to prove their right and title over the schedule B land. In present case it was Plaintiff who came before court with prayer of declaration of right title and interest. It was his duty to prove his claim. The benefit of lacunae on the part of defendant cannot be given to him. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W. 1 has denied that his father has not received any compensation form D.V.C. but he has admitted that there was dispute between D.V.C. and his father and order of settlement officer u/s 89 C.N.T. Act against them. The Ext-4 which is certified copy of order passed by settlement officer is passed in favour of defendant, DVC. Although D.V.C. has not filed relevant documents to support their claim but it doesn't justify claim of plaintiff. The issue no.4 is whether plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs? This issue is also not decided in his favour. In my opinion Plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief or reliefs.” 18. The learned 1st appellate court considered the materials on record and framed the following point for consideration : - “(i) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants have right, title and possession over Schedule-B land. 2026:JHHC:2496 7 (ii) Whether issue no. I & II decided by court below in favour of plaintiffs/appellants is not sustainable in the eye of law. (iii) Impugned Judgment and decree of the Ld. Court below dismissing the suit is sustainable in the facts and evidences available on the record.” 19. The learned 1st appellate court considered all the points and held that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no valid cause of action. However, at the same time, the learned court has entered into the merits of the case also and has recorded a clear finding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his right, title and possession with respect to the suit property. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that mere entry in the remark column of record of rights neither create any title in favor of any person nor the same extinguishes the right of any party and entries in remark column in khatiyan is not a proof of title. 20. The learned 1st appellate court referred to Exhibit-4, which was the order passed by the Settlement Officer, wherein it was recorded that the compensation with respect to the suit property was given in L.A. Case No. 01/1950-51, but the order passed under Section 89 was not challenged and Exhibit-1 of the year 1978 was executed after the acquisition. The learned court also recorded that the plaintiffs had asserted that the vendor had derived title by virtue of oral gift of Schedule-A property and then sold by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.04.1978, but neither any date of gift was mentioned nor any such document was produced and such transaction was against the provision of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. 21. This Court finds that both the learned courts have entered into the claim of title of the plaintiffs whose claim was based on oral gift and the same was held to be in violation of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and thus, the plaintiff along with proforma defendant no. 2 and 3 failed to prove their right and title over the property. 22. This court finds that both the courts have passed well-reasoned judgement considering every aspect of the matter. No perversity in the 2026:JHHC:2496 8 matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned courts has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. This Court finds that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this 2nd appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 23. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.01.2026 Mukul/- Uploaded On: 09.03.2026