Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21013 (JHR)

Ramai Pahan v. Thakur Munda

2026-01-27

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 30.11.2019 and decree dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No.17 of 2010 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The suit was dismissed against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 29 on contest and ex-parte against Defendant No.30. The judgement in Title Suit No.20 of 1991 has been passed on 10.12.2009 (decree signed on 19.12.2009) by the learned Munsif, Civil Court, Khunti. 3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for a declaration that they have acquired occupancy right, title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation of their possession over the suit land. They had also prayed to mutate their names and for granting rent receipts to them with respect to the property. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though there are concurrent findings with regard to the issue as to whether the plaintiffs were the nearest agnates of the recorded tenants of Khata (RS) Nos.48, 49, 52 and 53 of the village, but the matter has not been properly examined by the learned courts, inasmuch as the learned courts have failed to consider that the parties were tribals and the learned court ought to have been more careful and ought to have called for further evidence from the parties. The learned counsel submitted that under such circumstances, the impugned judgements cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that they are the settled raiyats of Village- Karora, P.S. Khunti, District Ranchi (now Khunti) and have raiyati lands in the village under Mundari Khuntkattidars of the village, whereas the defendants are the Mundari Khuntkattidars of the village, who used to realize rent from the tenants. 6. It was asserted in the plaint that the parties are Mundas governed by their customary law where females are excluded from inheritance. Pandeya Munda, son of Karam Singh Munda, recorded tenant of RS Khata Nos.52 and 53 died leaving behind his only son Panda Munda, who died unmarried leaving behind the plaintiffs as agnates, who came in exclusive possession of the property. 7. Pandeya Munda, son of Karam Singh Munda, recorded tenant of RS Khata Nos.52 and 53 died leaving behind his only son Panda Munda, who died unmarried leaving behind the plaintiffs as agnates, who came in exclusive possession of the property. 7. Further case of the plaintiffs was that Jit Munda, son of Bhanwa Munda was recorded tenant of RS Khata Nos.48 and 49 who died leaving behind his son Bhawra Munda, who also died sonless leaving behind the plaintiffs as his heirs and legal representatives, who came in possession of the land and started cultivation without any objection from the widow of Bhawra Munda, who also died within a short time. 8. The plaintiffs gave a genealogy showing relationship with the recorded tenant with respect to Khata Nos.48, 49, 52 and 53. It was asserted that the defendants are the Mundari Khuntkattidars and they were only entitled to rent which was already fixed, but they were avoiding to grant rent receipts and were threatening the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was filed. 9. Defendant Nos.1 to 21 contested the suit and asserted that the plaintiffs are strangers and have no concern with the suit property and asserted that they are not related with the recorded tenants. Defendant Nos.22 to 29 are the Pahans of the village Karoda. It was asserted that Defendant Nos.22 to 30 had lost the case against Defendant Nos.1 to 21 relating to some of the khatas of land under Khewat Nos.3/21 in Partition Suit No.58/4 of 1980-82 and Title Appeal No.82 of 1982 and they with the collusion of the plaintiffs have filed the suit against Defendant Nos.1 to 21. They further asserted that Defendant Nos.1 to 21 are the Mundari Khuntkattidars of the village and the plaintiffs are the strangers and have no concern with the suit property and they were not related to the recorded tenant. They further asserted that the recorded tenants of the lands in the suit and their sons and heirs died issueless and thereafter, Defendant Nos.1 to 21 resumed the lands and came in possession thereof. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property. The Defendant Nos.22 to 29 are the pahans and they have no relation with the suit property. Defendant No.15(a) filed a separate written statement adopting the written statement filed by Defendant Nos.1 to 21. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property. The Defendant Nos.22 to 29 are the pahans and they have no relation with the suit property. Defendant No.15(a) filed a separate written statement adopting the written statement filed by Defendant Nos.1 to 21. Defendant Nos.16(a) and 16(b) also adopted the written statement of Defendant Nos.1 to 21. 10. A written statement was filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 asserting that the plaintiffs are the strangers and they have no concern with the suit property. It was asserted that the plaintiffs are not related to the recorded tenants and are not the agnates of the recorded tenants. Defendant No.22(a), 22(b) and 22(c) also filed a separate written statement asserting that the suit was barred by law of limitation and adverse possession and disputed the genealogical table given by the plaintiffs and asserted that the plaintiffs are not the agnates of the recorded tenant, and therefore, they are not entitled to inherit the property of the recorded tenants. 11. The learned trial court had framed the following issues for consideration: I. Have the plaintiffs cause of action for this suit and is the suit maintainable? II. Are the plaintiffs nearest agnates of the recorded tenants of Khata (R.S.) No.48, 49, 52 & 53 of the said village? III. Have the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land? IV. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the relief sought for or any other relief in law and equity?” 12. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the core issue is Issue Nos. (II) and (III). After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court held that on the basis of the evidences placed on record, the plaintiffs have been able to prove the genealogy and the plaintiffs have also been found in possession of the property and ultimately, decided Issue Nos. (II) and (III) in favour of the plaintiffs. 13. The learned 1 st appellate court considered the materials on record and recorded the admitted facts of the case in Paragraph-13 as follows: “ 13. (II) and (III) in favour of the plaintiffs. 13. The learned 1 st appellate court considered the materials on record and recorded the admitted facts of the case in Paragraph-13 as follows: “ 13. As per the pleadings of the party, the Admitted facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The suit land of Khata No.48 & 49 as mentioned in the Schedule B of plaint are originally belongs to the recorded tenant Jeet Munda, whereas lands of Khata No. 52 & 53 belong to recorded tenant Pandeya Munda. (ii) It is further admitted fact that recorded tenant Jeet Munda died leaving behind a son Bhaura Munda, who died sonless. Whereas Pandeya Munda died leaving behind the only son Panda Munda, who was died unmarried. (iii) It is further admitted fact that defendant-appellant no.1 to 21 are the Mundari Khuntkattidar of Mauza Karora.” 14. The learned 1 st appellate court recorded the disputed facts of the case to be adjudged in Paragraph-14 which is quoted as under: “ 14. The Disputed facts to be adjudged in this case are as follows:- (I) As per appellant-defendants after death of recorded tenant Jeet Munda and Pandeya Munda and their male successors, who ultimately died son-less, these appellants-defendants have resumed the suit land of khata no. 48, 49, 52 & 53. As per Munda's customary law, female has no right of inheritance, so after death of last male agnates of recorded tenant Jeet Munda and Pandeya Munda, ultimately their lands became abandoned and therefore the Mundari Khutkattidar being the Malik Munda had resumed those lands and came into peaceful possession over the same.” 15. The learned 1 st appellate court recorded that the plaintiffs had categorically stated that they are the nearest agnates of the recorded tenants and have categorically established such facts not only by documentary evidence, but also by oral evidences. 16. The learned 1 st appellate court framed the following points for adjudication in Paragraph-16 which are as under: (I) Whether the respondents-plaintiffs are the nearest Bhaiyad of recorded tenants Jeet Munda and Pandeya Munda or their successors in interest? (II) Whether the lands belong to Khata No.48, 49, 52 & 53 were resumed by the appellants-defendants no.1 to 21 being the Mundari Khutkattidar of Mauza Karora, and if so when these appellants-defendant had resumed such lands?” 17. (II) Whether the lands belong to Khata No.48, 49, 52 & 53 were resumed by the appellants-defendants no.1 to 21 being the Mundari Khutkattidar of Mauza Karora, and if so when these appellants-defendant had resumed such lands?” 17. The learned 1 st appellate court recorded that the plaintiffs have established their relationship with the recorded tenants and further recorded that apart from three other witnesses like P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, the plaintiffs have also examined P.W.4 Ramdin Mundain, who was the daughter of the recorded tenant Pandeya Munda, who has categorically established the genealogy as given by the plaintiffs and has also established that the plaintiffs are the agnates or nearest bhaiyad of the recorded tenants. The learned court recorded that this fact has not been contradicted by the defendants even after her thorough cross-examination. It stood admitted that Ramdin Mundain, is the daughter of the recorded tenant Pandeya Munda and the only surviving family member of Pandeya, as D.W.2 Karam Singh Munda, who is also one of the defendants, himself admitted in Paragraph-25 of his deposition that Pandeya had four daughters Ramdin, Ramia, Rado Devi and Sona. Even Defendant Witness No.4 Hari Singh Munda has stated in his deposition that Pandeya had four daughters and out of them, three have died. 18. The learned 1 st appellate court relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 Ramdin Mundain and found that she has proved the genealogy of the plaintiffs. The learned 1 st appellate court considered all the materials on record and ultimately gave concurrent findings with respect to the genealogy and that the plaintiffs were the nearest agnates of the recorded tenant Jeet Munda and Pandeya Munda and so after the death of their male successors, as per Munda’s customary law, land of Khata Nos.48, 49, 52 and 53 was inherited by the nearest bhaiyad of the recorded tenants, who are the plaintiffs before the court. 19. The learned 1 st appellate court also considered the other issue regarding resumption of land by the defendants, as the specific case of the Defendant Nos.1 to 21 was that they being the Khutkattidar of Mauza Karora had resumed the land of Khata Nos.48, 49, 52 and 53 which was recorded in the name of Jeet Munda and Pandeya Munda after the same was abandoned after the death of their last male successor. 20. 20. The learned 1 st appellate court considered the materials on record and ultimately held that till 1986, land of Khata Nos.52 and 53 was being cultivated by Panda Munda and till 1988, land of Khata Nos.48 and 49 was being cultivated by wife of Bhaura Munda and daughter in law of the recorded tenant Jeet Munda. So, there was no question of the suit lands being resumed by Khuntkatitdar till 1988. The suit was filed in the year 1991 and so it was the duty of the defendants to establish that when and under what circumstances, they found the suit land to be abandoned and had resumed the same being khuntkatidar. The learned court also recorded that such fact has not been established by the Defendant Nos.1 to 21 and therefore, the plea of resumption of land has not been established by the defendants even on the principles of preponderance of probability. The learned court was of the view that the trial court has rightly decreed the suit. After discussing the materials on record, the learned 1 st appellate court dismissed the appeal. 21. This Court finds that the parties contested the suit and evidence was led from both the sides and ultimately, the court decreed the suit. It has been clearly recorded, based on materials on record, that the plaintiffs were the nearest agnates of the recorded tenant and they were in possession at least till 1988. The suit was filed in the year 1991. The case of the Defendant No.1 to 21 that the plaintiffs were the strangers and were not the agnates of the recorded tenant was rejected and it was held that the genealogy was duly proved by the plaintiffs. The learned court also recorded that the case of the Defendant No.1 to 21 was that after the death of the recorded tenant, they had resumed the suit property, but the said defendants failed to prove this fact by leading cogent evidence. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts and no perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. This Court is of the considered view that there is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law involved in this case. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 22. This Court is of the considered view that there is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law involved in this case. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 22. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through “FAX/email”.