( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 556 of 2004 1. Md. Ishaque Ali (substituted v.o.d. 06.04.2026) A. Most. Tahira, w/o late Md. Ishaque Ali B. Md. Najir Alam, S/o- Late Md. Ishaque Ali C. Md. Shahjahan, S/o – late Md. Ishaque Ali 2. Mhd. Alimuddin 3. Skh. Irfan Ali All sons of late Jar Ali 4. Mhd. Azmuddin 5. Mhd. Rahman Both sons of late Ibrahim All residents of village – Ghat Gamhariya, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District – Godda … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. The State through D.C. Dumka 2. The Divisional Commissioner of Dumka 3. The Subdivisional officer of Godda … …Defendants/First Party/Respondents First Party / Respondents First Party Skh. Farokat (substituted v.o.d. 06.04.2026) 4 Most. Jainul, W/o late Skh. Farokat 4(a) Skh. Ahmad, 4(b) Skh. Mubarak, 4(c) Skh. Alamgir, 4(d) Skh. Safdar, 4(a) to 4(d) S/o – late Skh. Farokat Skh. Subhan (substituted v.o.d. 06.04.2026) 5. Most. Chamni, W/o late Skh. Subhan 5(a) Skh. Naushad Ali, 5(b) Skh. Shamshad, 5(c) Md. Ansar Ali @ Md. Ansar, 5(d) Md. Maqsood Alam, 5(e) Md. Arif Alam, 5(a) to 5(e) S/o – Late Skh. Subhan Residents of Village Ghat Gamhariya, P.O. + P.S. – Mahagama, District – Godda … Defendants/Second Party/Respondents Second Party/ Respondents Second Party 6. Bibi Makhida, W/o Skh. Zahur 7. Bibi Sakhida, w/o Skh. Sirajul 8. Bibi Fazmun, wife of Jahangir 9. Skh. Sujan son of late Kamruddin (No.6 – resident of village Rastikur, P.S. Thakur Gangti, District – Godda) No.7 resident of village Bhuska, P.S. Thakur Gangti, District – Godda) ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 2 No.8 resident of village, P.S. and District – Godda) No.9 resident of village Rastikur, P.S. Thakur Gangti, District – Godda) … Defendants/Third Party/Respondents Third Party/ Respondents Third Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate Md. Faiyaz Alam, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Mridula Thakur, Advocate --- C.A.V. On 24.04.2026 Pronounced on 17.08.2026 This second appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 24.07.2004 and decree signed on 17.08.2004 by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Godda in Title Appeal No.15/2003 / 5/2004 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgement dated 05.07.2003 and decree dated 18.07.2003 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge III, Godda in Title Suit No.73 of 1975 / 10 of 1992 dismissing the suit. 2. On 07.05.2009, following substantial question of law was framed: “Whether the learned courts below correctly appreciated the judgement passed in Title Suit No.125 of 1968 (Annexure 7)? 3. The plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs: (a) That the court will be pleased to hold and declare that the order of eviction passed by the Addl. Dy. Commissioner in Rev. Mise. Appeal No.171/1970-71 dated 30-4-71 and the order dated 20-5-75 passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur in S.P. Rev. Misc. Rev. No. 10/71-72 is erroneous illegal and without jurisdiction. (as mentioned in the plaint vide red ink that this relief was deleted vide order dated 13.10.1999) 1(a) That on such deletion the title of the plaintiff over the suit land be declared and their possession thereon be also confirmed (as mentioned in the plaint vide red ink that this relief was inserted vide order dated 20.09.1995). ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 3 (b) That the court will be further pleased to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1st and 2nd party from executing the order of eviction and thereby dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. (c) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. (d) That other relief or reliefs which may be deemed fit and proper be granted to the plaintiff. Schedule “I” Mouza Ghat Gamharia P.S. Mahagama No.467 J.B. No.31 Plot No. Class Area Boundary 153 Dhani I 0-15-07 N.Sk. Roshan Ali S. do 167 Dhani I 0-11-10 N. Narsingh Pd. Darbey S. Ramdhani Choubey 341 Dhani III 0-07-04 N. Niz S. Bhagli Mandal 342 Bari I 0-17-17 N. Pokhar S. Niz 344 Bari I 0-08-00 N. Pokhar S. Niz 345 Bari 0-08-0 N. Niz S. Bhagli Mandal 169 D. I 0-00-11 N. Sk. Mosaheb Ali S. Narsingh Pd. Dubey Total 2-18-09 4. The suit was contested and following issues were framed: - (i) Whether suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether plaintiffs have valid title on the basis of adverse possession on the suit land? (iii) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for any further relief? 5. The suit was dismissed and the 1st appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this court. 6. Arguments of the appellants. A. Earlier one Title suit no. 125 of 1968 was filed by Skh. Chedi, Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitun against Jar Ali and adverse possession of the defendant in the said suit were declared by the Deputy Collector, Godda vide judgment dated 04.11.1968 (Ext. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 4 7). The Title suit no. 125 of 1968 was dismissed by observing that Sk. Jar Ali had perfected his title by adverse possession. B. Another proceeding being RER Case No. 26 of 1968-69 was filed by the Sk. Talim of Village Ghatgamharia against Sk. Chedi , Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitun under section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Regulation which was dismissed vide order dated 22.05.1970 (Ext.6). The appeal against the said order was numbered as Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 171/ 1970-71 which was filed by Sk. Talim Ali against Sk. Jar Ali, Sk. Chedi, Most Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitun was allowed vide judgment dated 30.04.1971 and consequently, said Jar Ali was directed to be evicted from the plots mentioned in Kufanama dated 15.05.1948 and the plots were directed to be restored back to the respondent second party namely Sk. Chedi, Most. Bibi Gafaina and Bibi Jaitun and it was observed that the land would become available for settlement with local deserving tenants. The findings of the learned appellate authority are in paragraphs 5 and 6. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.04.1971 passed in Revision Misc. Appeal No. 172/ 1971 (exhibit -9) a revision was preferred which was numbered as S.P. Revision Misc. No. 10/ 1971-72 and was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.1975. C. In the present case Sk. Jar Ali is the plaintiff. Initially when the suit was filed, the order of eviction passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Revision Misc. appeal No. 171/1970- 71 dt. 30.04.1971 and the order dated 20.05.1975 passed by the Commissioner Bhagalpur in SP Division Misc. Case No. 10/1972 were challenged but by virtue of amendment in the plaint, the challenge to these orders was deleted and the suit was confined to declaration of title and confirmation of possession which were also introduced by amending the plaint. D. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there cannot be any bar seeking declaration of title by filing a suit even if the revenue authority has passed order under section 20 of Santhal ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 5 Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act directing for eviction of the plaintiffs. E. He submits that under aforesaid circumstances, the judgment passed in the Title suit no. 125 of 1968 declaring the adverse possession of Jar Ali, who is the plaintiff in the present case and defendant in the Title suit no. 125 of 1968, has become final and therefore the judgement passed in Title suit no. 125 of 1968 (Ext. 7) has not been properly considered by the learned court. He submits that if Ext. 7 is taken into consideration, there can be no dispute with regard to the possession as title was already declared to have been acquired by adverse possession. It is the specific case of the plaintiff in this case that they are in the cultivating possession of the suit property and have also constructed a residential house over the property. F. Having given the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court recorded that the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 (Ext.7) was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Additional Deputy Commissioner) in revision Misc. Appeal No. 172/1971 wherein it was recorded that the judgment in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was collusive. The Learned counsel has submitted that the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was never challenged, rather Misc. Appeal No. 172/1971 was arising out of a proceeding initiated under section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned trial court has committed error of record. G. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the 1st Appellate court has recorded the findings in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, but there is no consideration of Ext. 7 at all. The learned 1st appellate court has gone into the legality, validity of Kufanama and held that the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the Kurfanama. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 6 H. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if Ext. 7 was considered, there was no scope to disbelieve the Kurfanama, in as much as Kurfanama was duly accepted as valid by the Revenue Authority in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 vide Ext. 7 which further became the basis of declaring adverse possession of the present plaintiff, who was the defendant in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968. The judgment in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 has attained finality. I. Suit contained in Ext. 7 is referrable to suit filed under Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 and has submitted that there was a complete bar in filing any suit in civil courts established under Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Acts, 1887 and the suit was required to be filed before the prescribed authority in terms of section 5. The consequence of Ext. 7 having not been considered by the learned 1st Appellate Court, the case be remanded or the appeal be allowed on merits as all the documents and materials are already before this court. J. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the Kurfanama dated 15.05.1948 (Exhibit-2), Sk. Jar Ali was in possession of the property much prior to 12 years from the date of Kurfanama. He has further submitted that under such circumstances, Sk. Jar Ali had perfected his title prior to coming into force of supplementary provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. K. He has then referred to the Full bench judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1972 SCC Online Pat 116 (Bhauri Lal Jain and another versus Sub Divisional Office of Jamtara and others) paragraph 56 and submits that it has been recorded therein that the limitation act was applicable under the provisions of Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 and ultimately it has been held that if a person perfects his title by adverse possession prior to coming into force of supplementary provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, then under such circumstances, his ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 7 adverse possession could be acknowledged. He submits that supplementary provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 came into effect from 1st November, 1949 and if a person remained in possession and other ingredients of adverse possession are satisfied for a period 12 years prior to 1st November, 1949, his adverse possession could be declared. L. He has then referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court Full Bench reported in 1984 SCC Online Pat 219 (Deonarayan Singh and Others versus Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division and Others) and submitted that the point of consideration before the Hon’ble Full Bench was whether the prescriptive period of twelve years for perfecting the title by adverse possession (the original transfer being in contravention of S. 27 of the Regulation 3 of 1872) would stop running from 1st of November, 1949, being the date of enforcement of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. Different situations have been considered in paragraph 20 of the said judgement. M. The learned counsel submits that since the Kurfanama is dated 15.05.1948 which reflected that Jar Ali was in possession more than 12 years prior to 15.05.1948, therefore there can be no dispute that Jar Ali had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. N. He has then referred to Exhibit-7 and has submitted that Kurfanama was duly exhibited in the earlier title suit and the same was acknowledged and ultimately it was recorded that Jar Ali was in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years and has acquired title by adverse possession. O. The learned counsel has submitted that the case of the appellants is covered by paragraph 20(iii) of the aforesaid judgment as Jar Ali had perfected the title by way of adverse possession prior to coming into force of supplementary provisions of Santhal ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 8 Pargana Tenancy Regulation which came into effect from 01st November, 1949. P. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Exhibit-6, which is the order dated 22.05.1970 and was numbered as R.E.R Case No. 26 of 1968-69, reveals that it was filed by Sk. Talim who filed the case and Sk. Talim was not the recorded tenant with respect to the suit property. The learned counsel has submitted that the proceeding filed by Sk. Talim itself was not maintainable at his instance. He has also submitted that Sk. Talim was not a party to Exhibit-7. Q. Learned counsel has submitted that the recorded tenant as well as the plaintiff of the present case, both were impleaded as party in R.E.R Case No. 26 of 1968-69 and it was alleged that the Exhibit- 7 was collusive and originally the Sub-Divisional Officer refused to entertain the petition. R. Learned counsel has also submitted that since Sk. Talim was not the recorded tenant, the petition itself was not maintainable. He has also submitted that this order was subject matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 172 of 1970-71 which was filed by Sk Talim however, the appellate authority has allowed the appeal. S. The order of appellate authority reveals that Sk Jar Ali was directed to be evicted from all the plots mentioned in Kurfanama dated 15.05.1948 and the plots were restored back to the recorded tenant who were the respondent 2nd party in the appeal. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed which remained unchallenged. T. Learned counsel has submitted that entire proceedings at the instance of Sk. Talim was not maintainable and therefore all the order have no bearing in this case and they are nullity. 7. Arguments of the respondents. I. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to paragraph 4 of the appellate court’s judgment and has submitted that it was specific case of the contesting defendant, who were successors of Sk. Sanjho, that Kurfanama dated 15.05.1948 was forged and ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 9 fabricated and the plaintiff never came in possession. The story of bhugatbandha in favour of Ram Nagina was fabricated and the suit was collusive. II. The suit was contested by Sk. Sujan, the intervener defendant, who put forth his claim by pleading Sk Jar Ali and Talim Ali were the brothers and the property was partitioned much earlier to settlement and further all the shareholders were in exclusive separate possession. It was also asserted that Bibi Gafina and Hanifa were also the daughters of Sk. Sanjho and Kamruddin was the successor of Hanifa and Sk. Sujan was the son of Kamruddin. The property came in the share of Sk. Abdul was possessed by his daughter Bibi Jaitun and Bibi Kari. He denied the execution of any kurfanama. III. During the court proceeding it transpires that the Kurfanama was executed by Sk. Chhedi S/o: Sk. Sanjho, Most. Gafina, W/o: Sk. Abdul and Bibi Jaitun, W/o Sk. Kamruddin. The intervener, who was made defendant in the suit was Sk. Sujan S/o: Kamruddin. IV. The learned counsel submits that courts have rightly come to conclusion that the Kurfanama itself was forged and fabricated and therefore, it is submitted that no right could have flown to the appellants through Kurfanama. V. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any discussion with respect to Exhibit-7 in the appellate court’s judgement. 8. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in Exhibit-7 [Title Suit No. 125 of 1968] the plaintiffs were Sk. Chedi, Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitun and the defendant was Jar Ali and there were aforesaid three persons who had granted the Kurfanama. Findings of this court 9. Original Plaintiff- The original plaintiff of the suit was Sk. Jar Ali; Defendant 1st party- defendant no. 1, 1(a), 2 and 3 were authorities of the state and were defendant 1st party; Defendant 2nd party- Defendant no.4 was Sk. Talim Ali (brother of the original plaintiff). Defendant no. 4 was defendant 2nd party; ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 10 defendant no. 4 was substituted by his two sons, namely, Skh. Farokhat and Skh. Subhani ; Defendant 3rd party - Bibi Jaitun was defendant 3rd party; Bibi Jaitun was substituted by Biwi Makhidan, Bibi Sakhidan , Bibi Fazmun ; y Intervenor -added as defendant 3rd party- Sk. Sujan son of Sk. Kamruddin was added as defendant 3rd party vide order dated 30.01.1996. 10. Case of the plaintiff as per the plaint. (i) As per the plaint which was originally filed, the plaintiff filed suit claiming relief to declare that the order of eviction passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No.171/1970-71 dated 30.04.71 and order dated 20.05.75 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur in S.P Revision Miscellaneous No.10/71-72 is erroneous, illegal and without jurisdiction. Further to grant permanent injunction regarding defendant 1st and 2nd party from executing the order of eviction and other reliefs which may be deemed fit and proper. (ii) The plaint shows relief no.1 being principal relief was deleted as per order dated 13.10.99 and the prayer for declaration of possession and confirming the same was incorporated by order dated 20.09.95. (iii) The relief above were sought in respect of land of J.B. No.31 having different plots which was recorded in the name of SK. Sanjho and others. some of the plots were in separate possession of the recorded tenants and some were joint in their possession and entry to this effect has been made in the remarks column of the parcha against each plot. After settlement, the recorded tenant partitioned this land amicable, each of them came into separate possession. (iv) Sk. Sanjho died leaving behind Sk. Chedi and a daughter Biwi Gafina who succeeded the property left by their father. Bibi Gafina was married with sk. Abdul and sk. Abdul died leaving behind two daughters Bibi Jaitun and Bibi Kari and widow, Biwi Gafina. (v) The lands mentioned in schedule 1 of the plaint were allotted by the aforementioned partition to Sk. Chhedi, Bibi Gafina and Bibi Zaitoon and they were in possession over their respective lands. (vi) Due to economic depression and loss of plough and bullock the cultivation of the land of schedule 1 was neglected and they had no alternative but to give the suit lands in Kurfa to the plaintiff and they executed a Kurfanama on 15.05.1948 in favour of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit lands. (vii) After the Kurfanama was executed, the plaintiff has been in actual cultivating possession of the suit lands openly and adversely and on the expiry of statutory period the plaintiff acquired valid, legal and ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 11 indefeasible title in the suit land and the plaintiff has been paying Rs. 3.75 the Kurfa rent to Sk. Chhedi and others and getting rent receipts in respect thereof. (viii) Bibi Gafina executed 'Bhugatbandha' on 9.4.62 in favour of Ram Nagina Bhagat in respect of plot No. 152, 146, 167, but plaintiff was already in possession over the plots No.153 & 167 and refused to give possession. Ram Nagina Bhagat decided to take back money from the plaintiff and to return the documents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the amount and got back the document deed after endorsement. (ix) Sk. Chedi, Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitun wanted to resume the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff. But the plaintiff claimed that he has perfected title in the suit land and refused to give possession. (x) Sk. Chedi, Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitun filed title suit no.125/68 in the Court of S.D.O. Godda against the plaintiff for declaration of title and possession: the suit was transferred to D.C., Godda for disposal which was dismissed by the court by its judgment dated 04.11.68 and it was held that the plaintiff has acquired a valid and legal tenancy right by adverse possession. Against the said decree no appeal was filed. (xi) The defendant 2nd party, who was the full brother of the plaintiff, maliciously filed a petition for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land under the provisions of S.P.T Act before the S.D.O. Godda bearing R.E.R. CASE no. 26/68-69 which was rejected on contest. Against this order, revenue misc. appeal no. 171 /70-71 was filed by which the order of SDO Godda was set-aside and an order of eviction was passed. The plaintiff filed revision numbered as 10/71- 72 before the commissioner which was dismissed on 20.05.1975. During the pendency of the said title suit the plaintiff reclaimed the land and the value of the suit land increased. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the orders passed by appellate authority and the revisional authority are without jurisdiction and are illegal. (xii) It is the case of the plaintiff (Jar Ali) that schedule 1 property, in connection with which Bibi Gafina, Bibi Jaitun and Sk. Chedi gave ‘Kurfanama’ to the plaintiff, who also came in possession continuously and uninterruptedly since 1934-35 till date of filing the suit. In spite of having lost in title suit no.135/68 in the Court of S.D.O. Godda and also revision, the possession of the plaintiff was still intact. It is the case of the plaintiff that having lost in title suit no. 125/68, the revenue court had no jurisdiction to evict the plaintiff. The finding of the revenue court that the title suit no. 125 of 1968 was collusive and that the plaintiff had acquired no legal right by khurfa dated 15.05.1948 are against the decision of title suit no. 125 of 1968 and such findings are without jurisdiction and erroneous. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 12 11. Case of the respondents as per the written statement a. The suit was contested by the defendants Bibi Makhidan, Bibi Sakhida, Bibi Fazmun who claimed themselves to be the successor of Sk. Sanjho. It was asserted that the Kurfanama dated 15.5.1948 is a forge and fabricated one. The plaintiff never possessed the property. The story of bhugatbandha in favour of Ram Nagina has been fabricated and the suit is collusive. b. The suit was also contested by Sk. Sujan; the intervenor defendant, who put forth his claim by pleading Sk. Jar Ali and Talim Ali were the brothers. The property was partitioned much earlier to settlement. All the shareholders were in their exclusive separate possession. Bibi Gafina and Hanifa were also the daughters of Sk. Sanjho; Kamruddin was the successor of Hanifa and Sk. Sujan was son of Kamruddin. c. The property which came in share of Sk. Abdul was possessed by his daughter Bibi Jaitun and Bibi Kari. The suit is bad for non-joinder of their successors. The property i.e. plot No.341, 342, 344 & 56 was not yet partitioned. He denied the execution of any kurfanama. 12. The substantial question of law has been framed as to whether the learned courts correctly appreciated the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 (Exhibit 7). Considering the fact that the question of law revolves around the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968, which is a short order, the entire text of the said judgment is quoted as under: “Copy of Judgment dated 4.11.68. In the Court of Shri. M. Hussain, Deputy Collector, Title suit no. 125 of 1968. 1. Sk. Chhedi. 2. Bibi Gafina. 3. Bibi Jaitoon …. Plaintiff. Versus 1. Jar ali …. Defendant. This title suit is in respect of lands of plot no. 167 part of plot no. 169, 341, part of plot no. 342 and 344 measuring an area of one bigha seven Kathas and twelve dhurs of Mouza Ghat Ghamahria P.S. Mahagama, and plot no. 153 and part of plot no. 341, 342 and 345 measuring an area of one Bigha ten Kathas and thirteen dhurs of Mouza Ghat Gamharia P.S. Mahagama Distt Santal Parganas, both within Jamabandi no.31. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 13 The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit lands are recorded in the name of Sk. Sanjo and others the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have given the lands to the defendant for cultivation but now he does not want to give back the lands to the plaintiffs and thereby dispossessed them. They have filed this suit for the recovery of possession of the suit lands. The case of the defendant is that the suit lands were given by the plaintiffs to the defendant about sixteen years ago. He has acquired the lands through Kurfa. He pays rent to the plaintiffs. Two witnesses one for the plaintiff and other for the defendant have been examined in this suit besides plaintiff and the defendant. From their evidences it is clear that the suit lands are in possession of the defendant since 18 years. This fact has been admitted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have admitted the possession of the defendant over the suit lands. The defendant has produced Kurfanama Ext. A and rent receipts Ext B, B/1 which proves the possession of the defendant. Thus, from the evidences, it is apparent that the defendant is in possession of the suit lands for more than 12 years and as such has acquired full tenancy rights by virtue of his adverse possession for more than twelve years as provided under Article 65 of Limitation Act. The case of the plaintiff is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- M. Hussain. 4.11.68. Deputy Collector, Godda.” 13. Earlier Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 filed before Deputy Collector, Godda The judgment reveals that Sk. Chhedi, Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitoon were the plaintiffs and Jar Ali was the sole defendant. The aforesaid three plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 claimed that the suit property was recorded in the name of Sk. Sanjo and others; Sk. Sanjo was the father of the plaintiffs and they had given the lands to the sole defendant namely, Jar Ali for cultivation, but he did not want to give back the same. The suit was filed for recovery of possession. The specific case of the defendant in the suit namely, Jar Ali was that the plaintiffs had given the suit land to the defendant about 18 years ago and he had acquired the land through Kurfa and he paid rent to the ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 14 plaintiffs. The Kurfanama was marked Ext. A in the said suit and the rent receipts were marked exhibit- B and B/1. The learned Deputy Collector, Godda recorded that the defendant of the case was in possession of the suit property since 18 years which was more than 12 years and as such, the defendant Jar Ali acquired full tenancy rights by virtue of his adverse possession for more than 12 years as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 14. R.E.R. Case No. 26 of 1968-69 The full brother of Jar Ali namely, Sk. Talim Ali, who was not a party in the Title Suit No. 125 of 1968, filed a petition under section 20 of SPT Act bearing R.E.R. Case No. 26 of 1968-69 against Sk. Chhedi and others who were opposite 1st party and Sk. Jar Ali who was opposite 2nd party. It was his specific case that the property in Jamabandi No. 31 was recorded in the name of Sk. Sanjho and others and opposite 1st party were selling part of the said Jamabandi to opposite 2nd party and that the opposite 1st party and opposite 2nd party had also brought a collusive title suit between themselves only to alienate the land and therefore, a prayer was made to evict both opposite 1st party and opposite 2nd party from the suit land and further prayer was made that the lands be settled with him (Sk. Talim Ali). The opposite 1st party in the said case namely, Sk. Chhedi and others filed their show-cause and stated that they had no concern with the land and opposite 2nd party was in possession. Further, the case of the opposite 2nd party in the said case namely, Sk. Jar Ali was that he has been in continuous possession of the land by virtue of Kurfa and that the possession has perfected into title. The Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, while deciding R.E.R. Case No. 26 of 1968-69 observed that even if the title suit being Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 is treated as collusive, it would not make any material difference as no clear evidence was adduced before the authority that Jar Ali was not in continuous possession over the land. With respect to Kurfanama executed by opposite 1st party in favour of opposite 2nd party, the authority observed that admittedly transfer through Kurfanama is illegal transfer under section 20 of SPT Act and ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 15 such transfer will be deemed to be invalid, but examined as to what would be the consequence if the transferee continues in possession even on the basis of illegal transfer. The authority observed, by referring to a judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court, that where the possession is given through an invalid transfer and the title has ripened into perfect title by efflux of time, eviction order under section 20 of SPT Act cannot be passed. The authority made a reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in S.A. No. 254 and other analogous cases of 1954 reported in 1957 B.L.J.R. 820. The authority also observed that where the possession is illegal because of the transfer being invalid, there is no question of acquisition of title by adverse possession and eviction order can be passed irrespective of the length of possession, that is, even in cases where transferee is in possession for more than 12 years. The authority further observed that in the case before him, although the transferee came in possession over the land by virtue of illegal transfer, he acquired adverse possession over the land by passing of time. The authority also considered the Bhugatbandha of the year 1962 said to have been executed by Most. Gafiran, one of the co-sharers in favour of one Ram Nagina Bhagat, but observed that Ram Nagina Bhagat could not plough the land as Jar Ali was in cultivating possession and therefore, Bhugatbandha does not conclusively falsify the claim of Jar Ali of possession over the property. The authority held that, in aforesaid circumstances, he did not feel to be competent to invoke the provision of section 20 of the SPT Act by ordering the eviction of opposite 2nd party (Sk. Jar Ali) and dismissed the petition under section 20 of SPT Act which was numbered as R.E.R. Case No. 26 of 1968-69. 15. Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 172 of 1970-71 The said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was subject matter of appeal filed by Sk. Talim Ali before Additional Deputy Commissioner, S.P. at Dumka and numbered as Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 172 of 1970-71. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, while passing the order, recorded that Sk. Talim had filed petition for eviction of plot nos. 153, ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 16 167, 169, 341, 342 and 344 pertaining to Jamabandi No. 31 and also recorded the fact that the Kurfa consisted of plot nos. 153, 167, 341, 342, 344, 345 and 169 and thus, plot no. 345 which was included in Kurfa was not sought to be evicted in the proceeding under section 20 of SPT Act. The authority also recorded that Mostt. Gafina had given the plot nos. 153, 167 and 146 of J.B. No. 31 in Bhugatbandha in favour of Ram Nagina Bhagat for consideration of Rs. 300/- vide registered deed dated 09.04.1962, but Jar Ali did not allow Ram Nagina Bhagat to cultivate the plots, although plot no. 146 did not figure in the Kurfa and he managed to get possession of the original Bhugatbandha deed with an endorsement of Ram Nagina Bhagat relinquishing his right over the Bhugatbandha plots. The appellate authority also observed that initially Sk. Chhedi and others granted Kurfa settlement of the plots in dispute vide Kurfanama dated 15.05.1948 and subsequently, created Bhugatbandha deed dated 09.04.1962 regarding the same plots and filed title suit bearing Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 and such step was taken only to fortify the Kurfa settlement made in favour of Sk. Jar Ali. The authority also recorded that although the Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was filed for recovery of possession, but Bibi Gafina – one of the plaintiffs in the Title Suit, practically supported the case of Jar Ali. The appellate authority, in the aforesaid background, recorded the following finding: “6. …………..So a close analysis of the said plaint and the deposition, will show that this title suit was collusive and the decree was obtained for the support of the Kurfanama created only on 15.5.48 about a year and a half before the enactment of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949, whose sections 20(1) and 69(illegible) run counter to this transaction.” After having recorded as aforesaid, the appellate authority held that Jar Ali cannot be given the benefit of adverse possession because the possession if any, after the enactment of the S.P.T. Act, 1949, is illegal and consequently, set-aside the order of the S.D.O. Godda. The appellate authority directed Jar Ali to be evicted of all the plots mentioned in the Kurfanama dated 15.05.1948 and the plots were ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 17 directed to be restored to the respondent 2nd party of the said case. It was further directed that on the failure of the respondent 2nd party to resume possession, they were also liable to eviction from the said plots and the land would become available for settlement with local deserving raiyats. The said appeal was allowed. In view of the aforesaid appellate order, the respondent 1st party namely, Sk. Jar Ali was directed to be evicted and the respondent 2nd party Sk. Chhedi and others were to be restored with the possession. The ultimate findings are quoted as under: “6….Under the circumstances discussed above, this transaction by the respondent second party on one hand and the respondent first party on the other, cannot give the benefit of adverse possession in favour of respondent first party Sk. Jar Ali, because possession if any, after the enactment of the S.P.T. Act, 1949, is illegal and hence the order of the S.D.O. Godda is set aside. AS a result, the respondent first party Sk. Jar Ali is evicted from all the plots mentioned in the Kurfanama dated 15.5.48 and the plots are restored back to the respondent second party, on whose failure to resume possession, they are also liable to eviction from the said plots and the land in question will become available for settlement with the local deserving raiyats. Thus, the appeal is allowed.” 16. S.P. Revision Misc. Revision No. 10 of 1971-72 The appellate order was subject matter of consideration before the revisional authority which was numbered as S.P. Revision Misc. Revision No. 10 of 1971-72 filed before the Commissioner. The revision was filed by Sk. Jar Ali. The revisional authority considered the entire facts and circumstances including the judgment of Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 (exhibit- 7 in the present case). The authority held that although a Kurfanama dated 15.05.1948 was produced, but it was very difficult to say as to whether it was a genuine document and it was difficult to rely on such a Kurfa and the so-called Kurfa receipts in the absence of other corroborating evidence proving the possession of the petitioner (Sk. Jar Ali) from the year, 1948. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 18 The Commissioner further considered that even this Kurfanama was accepted for the purpose of argument, Sk. Jar Ali came in cultivating possession of the land in question on account of Kurfanama settlement from the year 1948, the authority recorded that it was surprising as to how Mostt. Gafina, who was just one of the members of the opposite 2nd party, could execute Bhugatbandha deed in respect of plot nos. 153 and 167 in favour of one Ram Nagina Bhagat and also observed that the Bhugatbandha deed also included plot no. 146. The authority observed that plot nos. 153 and 167 were certainly included in Kurfa settlement in the year 1948, but it was not understood as to how Mostt. Gafina could execute Bhugatbandha deed in respect of plot nos. 153 and 167 which were already supposed to be in cultivating possession of Sk. Jar Ali on the basis of Kurfanama executed in the year 1948. The Commissioner further observed that on the top of this, the endorsement was said to have been made by the mortgagee Ram Nagina Bhagat was also quite surprising. While the mortgagee could not have got possession of plot nos. 153 and 167 on account of Sk. Jar Ali being in cultivating possession of the same on the strength of Kurfanama settlement of the year, 1948, it was not understood as to how the mortgagee Ram Nagina Bhagat could not get the possession of plot no. 146 which was certainly not included amongst the plots which were taken in Kurfanama settlement by the petitioner (Jar Ali) from one of the members of opposite 2nd party namely, Mostt. Gafina. In the aforesaid background, the commissioner in the revision application, while dismissing the revision petition and upholding the order of the appellate authority, held that all these only highlighted the attempt made on the part of Sk. Jar Ali to strengthen his case by fabricating and manipulating documents to show his possession of land in question from the year, 1948. The Commissioner also agreed with the finding of the appellate authority that the Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was also a collusive one and the decree was obtained in favour of Jar Ali to support his possession of the land in question from the year, 1948. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 19 The commissioner further observed that Jar Ali had clearly failed to substantiate his claim of possession of land from the year 1948 on the strength of Kurfanama. The commissioner went on to consider that even if it is accepted for argument’s sake that Jar Ali came in possession of the land in question from 15.05.1948 – the date on which Kurfanama was executed in his favour, Jar Ali could not have completed 12 years of continuous possession over the land in question prior to commencement of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. The commissioner further went on to hold that Jar Ali’s claim of title by prescription has to be rejected as section 69 of the SPT Act is a bar to acquisition of right in land in contravention of the provision of the Act and therefore, refused to interference with the order of the appellate authority and rejected the revision application. 17. The perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner reveals that not only the Kurfanama was disbelieved by citing the circumstances, but even the Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was held to be collusive and further, it was held that Jar Ali had not completed 12 years prior to coming into force of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 and therefore, Jar Ali could not have been said to have acquired title by adverse possession. It was held that under section 69 of the SPT Act, acquisition of right is not permissible in contravention of the provisions of SPT Act. The present suit 18. The aforesaid order of the appellate authority and the order of the revisional authority (commissioner) were initially sought to be challenged in the present title suit but by virtue of an amendment, the said relief was deleted and consequently, the findings recorded in the order of the appellate authority, which in turn was upheld by the order of the Commissioner, has attained finality. However, in the present suit, in terms of the relief which survived and was added by virtue of the order dated 20.09.1995, the plaintiff Jar Ali sought a relief that his title and possession over the suit property mentioned in scheduled I of the plaint relating to Jamabandi No. 31 ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 20 and plot nos. 153, 167, 341, 342, 344, 345 and 169 be confirmed and further, the defendants 1st party as well as the defendants 2nd party be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff Jar Ali. 19. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has legal title to the suit land by way of adverse possession? (iii) What further relief is the plaintiff entitled to? 20. The learned trial court has recorded the following findings while deciding Issue No. 2-Whether plaintiffs have valid title on suit land on the basis of adverse possession? i. The judgement delivered on 04.11.1968 in T.S. No. 125/68 produced by the plaintiffs has been marked as Exhibit-7. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana has given his finding in Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 172/70-71 that above T.S. No. 125/68 was based on collusion. The plaintiffs filed S.P. Rev. Revision No. 10/71-72 against this decision which was dismissed by learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division. ii. An amendment petition was filed on 04.01.2003 on point of adverse possession and prayer was made that the plaintiffs have adverse possession on the suit land prior to twelve years of execution of Kurfa and it may be inserted. But the above amendment petition of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2003. The plaintiffs filed C.R. No. 161/03 against it in the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.04.2003. iii. It was clear from discussion that veracity of Kurfanama Exhibit-2 is suspicious. iv. The plaintiffs have clearly stated at Para-8 of their plaint that he came into actual possession of disputed land for agriculture work after execution of Kurfanama. v. Even if Kurfanama is considered correct, then prior to 01.11.1949, the adverse possession of plaintiffs on the disputed land does not complete twelve years ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 21 which is mandatory as per the S.P.T. Act, 1949. Therefore, issue no.2 was decided against the plaintiffs. 21. The 1st appellate court while dismissing the appeal has recorded as under: - a. From the careful appreciation of the rival claims advanced by the plaintiff and the contesting respondents the main trust is on exhibit 2 the Kurfanama. The genuineness of the same has been assailed by the defendants. The aforesaid Kurfanama (exhibit 2) which is on record, a hindi translation of the same has also been supplied by the appellant which pertains to the property bearing J.B.NO.31. It has been mentioned that Jar Ali was his closed relative who helped them in tight days for that reason the aforesaid land was said to have been given by this Kurfa. The date of execution is mentioned as 15.5.48, i.e. a little prior to commencement of S.P.T. Act, i.e. in the year 1949. b. The 1st appellate court referred to paragraph 8 of the plaint which contains pleading regarding the Kurfanama upon the basis of which the possession has been claimed by the plaintiff. The learned court was of the view that the evidences with respect to Kurfanama have been duly and rightly appreciated by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has rightly not accepted the khurfanama. c. The 1st appellate court held that the learned trial court has rightly discussed the oral as well as documentary evidences on record. d. The learned 1st appellate court also took into consideration that the plaintiff had deleted the principal relief which was pertaining to the earlier judgement and order passed by the revenue authorities and the claim of the plaintiff did not sustain. Once the principal relief was deleted, the amended relief could not be granted as the same would circumvent the earlier judgements and order by amendment incorporated. e. The learned 1st appellate court also held that once the S.P.T. Act came into force in the year 1949, the plaintiff failed to prove his continuous possession over the property in dispute. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 22 f. The 1st appellate court has held that the plaintiff’s witnesses have deliberately tried to establish the unfounded claim of the plaintiff, with specific motive. The orders passed in earlier proceeding coupled with concurrent findings against the plaintiff cannot be allowed to be circumvented by way of instant proceeding and as such appeal could not be allowed. 22. The findings of the 1st appellate are quoted for ready reference: - “After having considered the lower court record, the evidence oral, documentary, this Court gave sincere thought to the argument advanced where upon the prime issue for determining would be whether the appellant/plaintiff could have any of action, being entitled to get any relief as claimed pertaining to the suit land disclosed in the plaint. From the careful appreciation of the rival claims advanced by the plaintiff and the contesting respondents the main trust is on exhibit 2 the Kurfanama. The genuineness of the same has been assailed by the defendants. The aforesaid Kurfanama (exhibit 2) which is on record, a hindi translation of the same has also been supplied by the appellant which pertains to the property bearing J.B.NO.31. It has been mentioned that Jar Ali was his closed relative who helped them in tight days for that reason the aforesaid land was said to have been given by this Kurfa. The date of execution is mentioned as 15.5.48, i.e. a little prior to commencement of S.P.T. Act, i.e. in the year 1949. The paragraph 8 of the plaint contains pleading regarding the aforementioned Kurfanama upon the basis of which the possession has been claimed. So, the submission of learned counsel for the contesting respondent contrary to is not correct. A perusal of impugned Judgment shows that learned Court below while deciding issue No.2 that was relating to the acquisition of title on the basis of possession by the plaintiff the findings is to this effect that witness No.1 has not been able to describe the title of disputed property nor the Kurfa was written before him. Similarly, the next witness has also not been able to bring exact details and disbelieved these two withesses. As such, rightly discarded the testimony. By discussing the rest witness the disputed Kurfa which been said to have been written in Court by one Bhuneshwar, but he did not remember even the names of witnesses, as such his testimony pertaining to execution of Kurfa has rightly been not accepted, by learned Court below. There is detailed discussion pertaining to this Kurfa by the learned Court below, as such the submission advanced by the learned Court below is not correct that the same was not taken into judicial consideration. Learned Court below has elaborately discussed the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence on record. It is admitted to the plaintiff appellant that he lost earlier proceeding right from learned S.D.O up to Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division. In this ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 23 relief reference the relief sought by the plaintiff by deleting the principal relief which was pertaining to this earlier judgement and order passed by the Revenue authority the claim of the plaintiff does not sustain. Once the preliminary relief has been left for the reason there were finding recorded by the revenue authorities against them. The amended relief could have not been granted to him. As it would be the defeating, circumventing the earlier judgement and orders by way of amendment incorporated. Once the S.P.T. Act came into operation in the year 1949 the plaintiff has failed to prove his continuous possession over the property in dispute. For these findings this Court has given ample consideration to the oral evidence of Sk.Baijuddin PW 1 who in cross-examination stated contradicting himself by saying Kurfa was written before him justify he reverted back by saying the same was not written before him. PW 2 Sk.Wasir Ali is not definite whether it was written in the year 1948 or in the year 1950. The witness No.3 Nakul Mirdha and PW 4 Sk.Sultan had not supported the plaintiff. Their testimony has rightly been not found to be genuine, by the learned Court below. On the other hand, the other witnesses namely Sk. Ishaque Ali and the rest witnesses have deliberately tried to establish the unfounded claim of the plaintiff appellant, with specific motive. The orders passed in earlier proceeding coupled with concurrent findings against him cannot be allowed to be circumvented by way of instant proceeding. As such the same cannot be allowed. For that reason this Court finds no substance in the present appeal. The findings arrived by the learned Court below are quite sound, based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same are affirmed. Consequently, it is ordered that the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed with cost.” 23. In the judgment passed by Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1972 SCC OnLine Pat 116 (Bhauri Lal Jain and another Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer of Jamtara and others), the Hon’ble Patna High Court considered Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872 prohibiting transfers by raiyats of their raiyati holdings in the district of Santhal Pargana, which also empowered the Deputy Commissioner to evict the transferee if at any time it came to his notice that there had been a transfer in contravention of Section 27 (1) and restore the transferred land to the raiyat/any heir of raiyat who had transferred it, or resettle the land with another raiyat according to village customs. The said section 27 also contained a proviso inter alia that the transferee whom it is proposed to evict has not been in continuous cultivating possession for 12 years. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 24 24. The Hon’ble Patna High Court also considered the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949, which came into force on 01.11.1949, which was supplemental to Regulation III of 1872 and had repealed some of its provision. The Act of 1949 inter alia repealed Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872 and in lieu thereof enacted Section 20. The Hon’ble Patna High Court also observed that sub-section (5) of Section 20 was substituted by Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation (I) of 1969) by a new sub-section and the scope of the new section was confined to cases of transfer in contravention of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 20 by members of the Schedule Tribe only, and not to raiyats generally, and the new sub-section was referred to while considering the question whether title by adverse possession could be acquired under the Act. 25. The constitutional validity of the amendment was upheld by Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court, and thereafter, the Hon’ble Full Bench considered the question whether the title by adverse possession could be acquired after the Act of 1949 came in force. The Hon’ble Patna High Court also took into consideration Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 (Regulation 1 of 1969) whereby inter alia, with respect to Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XI of 1949) sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act of 1979 was substituted and the transfers by way of fraudulent method could also be annulled by virtue of the new provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 20, apart from the transfer being in contravention of Sub- section (1) or (2) of Section 20. 26. The Hon’ble Patna High Court referred to the decision reported in 1957 BLJR 820 wherein it was claimed that settlement through kurfa was invalid under Section 20 of the Act, and therefore, the possession of settlee was adverse since inception and they acquired title by adverse possession by remaining in possession over 12 years. The Court in the said decision reported in 1957 BLJR 820 held that where the possession is illegal because of the transfer being invalid and there is no question of acquisition of title by adverse possession, the Deputy Commissioner had power to order eviction, irrespective of the length of possession, ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 25 even in the cases where the transferee is in possession for more than 12 years under Section 20 of the Act, though under the Regulation he had no power to order eviction where the transferee had been in continuous cultivating possession for 12 years or more. The Hon’ble court in the aforesaid judgment reported in 1957 BLJR 820 (supra) held that the powers of Deputy Commissioner to evict are more or less administrative in nature, intended to secure to the tenants of the district of Santhal Pargana their occupancy right in the land and to regulate possession. It was also held that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title by whatever means acquired. 27. In that background, it was held that the orders of Deputy Commissioner were without jurisdiction and null and void and, if the orders are ultra vires of Deputy Commissioner, Section 63 of the Act affords no protection. The court held that where the order of eviction falls strictly under sub-Section (5) of Section 20 of the Act, then by virtue of provision of Section 63, the order cannot be questioned in the civil court and that no suit lies purely for the avoidance of the said order. It has been further held that if, on the other hand, his order is in excess of his jurisdiction, it is indisputable that the civil court has jurisdiction to interfere. 28. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in Bhauri Lal Jain (supra), while explaining the aforesaid judgment reported in 1957 BLJR 820 (supra) observed that in 1957 BLJR 820 (supra) it was only laid down that title by adverse possession could be acquired under Regulation III of 1872 and the Deputy Commissioner had the power to order eviction where a trespasser had not perfected title by adverse possession and, in that context, it was laid down that the power of Deputy Commissioner was administrative in nature. The Hon’ble Full Bench also held that on a review of the provisions under Section 27 (3) of Regulation III of 1872 or unamended Section 20 (5) of the Act, the power of the Deputy Commissioner is quasi- judicial power and not administrative power, which is subject to appeal and revision and it was also laid down in the said judgment in 1957 BLJR 820 (supra) that if Deputy Commissioner ordered eviction of ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 26 those who had acquired title by adverse possession, he acted in excess of jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Full Bench observed that it was not necessary to examine the correctness of the decision reported in 1957 BLJR 820. It was sufficed to conclude that title by adverse possession would be acquired by trespassers during the period of Regulation III of 1872 and such persons were not liable to eviction. The Hon’ble Full Bench further observed that the power of the Deputy Commissioner could be exercised only if the transfer was in contravention of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act or the property had been obtained by any fraudulent method. It was also observed that Regulation 1 of 1969 was assented to by the President, and therefore, the question of there being any repugnancy with the Limitation Act also did not arise. The conclusions have been recorded in paragraph 56 of the judgment, which is as under: “56. From the aforesaid discussions, I have arrived at the following conclusions:- (i) That there is no incidence of transferability of Raiyati holdings in Santal Parganas. (ii) That Section 20 of the Act is not ultra vires on the ground of its being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. (iii) That Section 42 of the Act is a legislation in respect of Entry No. 21 of List II State List, of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and is not violative of being repugnant to the provisions of the Limitation Act, Central Legislation, dealing with acquisition of right by adverse possession. (iv) That the Limitation Act was applied to the District of Santal Parganas under Regulation III of 1872, and adverse possession could be acquired under an in valid transfer, in contravention of Section 27(1) of the Regulation. Those, who did not acquire title by adverse possession under Regulation III of 1872, could be evicted under the old Section 20(5) or Section 42 of the Act, even after the repeal of Section 27(3) of the Regulation, as the Act was supplemental to the Regulation. (v) That Section 20 of the Act was prospective and that there could not be acquisition of title by adverse possession in case of transfer or settlement etc., in contravention of Section 20(1) and (2) of the Act. (vi) That Section 42 of the Act is a valid piece of legislation. (vii) That Section 20(5) of the Act, as amended, is a valid piece of legislation and is not ultra vires the Constitution on the grounds urged by Mr. Sinha.” ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 27 29. Thus, the Hon’ble Patna High court full Bench has clearly held that there is no incidence of transferability of raiyati holdings in Santhal Pargana; a person could acquire title by adverse possession if the transfer was in contravention of Section 27 (1) of Regulation III of 1872; those who did not acquire title by adverse possession under Regulation III of 1872 could be evicted under the old Section 20 (5) or Section 42 of the Act even after repeal of Section 27 (3) of the Regulation as the Act of 1949 was supplemental to the Regulation; Section 20 of the Act of 1949 was prospective and that there could not be acquisition of title by adverse possession in case of transfer or settlement etc. in contravention of Section 20 (1) & (2) of the Act of 1969. Thus, it has been held that under Regulation III of 1872, a property could be acquired by way of adverse possession under Santhal Pargana Tenancy, but after the introduction of supplementary provision of 1949, title by adverse possession could not be acquired if the transfer was in contravention of Sections 20 (1) & (2). 30. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Full Bench considered the individual cases and in paragraph 65 of the judgment observed that the necessary facts had not been investigated and there was no clear finding as to whether the petitioners really came into possession as alleged by them by virtue of Kurfa settlement of 1937 during the period when Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872 was in force or they came in possession when the Act was in force. The Hon’ble Full Bench observed that if the writ petitioner came in possession of the plot in question in 1937 under an invalid transfer and remained in possession of 12 years, he could acquire title by adverse possession, otherwise not, as no title by adverse possession could be acquired if the writ petitioner came in possession after 1949 when the Act was in force and the case was remanded for disposal in accordance with law. 31. The said judgment of Full Bench was again subject matter of consideration in the Full Bench judgment reported in 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 219 (Deonarayan Singh and others Vs. Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division and others), and it has been held that the prescriptive period of 12 years for perfecting the title by adverse ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 28 possession (in case of a transfer which was originally in contravention of Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872) would stop running on the date of enforcement of the aforesaid Act on 01.11.1949 and in order to claim title by adverse possession the prescriptive period of 12 years should be completed by 01.11.1949. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: “20. On a conspectus of the relevant statutory provisions, on principle and in the light of the aforesaid precedent, it would appear that three distinct situations may arise in the context of perfecting title by adverse possession where the original transfer is in contravention of the statute. For the sake of clarity these may be dealt with individually in the reverse chronological order. (i) A transfer in contravention of sub-sec. (1) or (2) of S. 20 of the Act. Obviously such a transfer would inevitably be after the enforcement of the Act on the 1st of Nov. 1949. In view of the clear provisions of sub-sees. (3), (4) and (5) of S. 20 itself and the related provisions of Ss. 42, 64, 65 and 69 of the said Act and the adjudication of the Full Bench in proposition (v) in Bhaurilal Jain's case (AIR 1973 Pat 1) (supra), no question of any acquisition of title by adverse possession or perfecting the same in this context can at all arise. (ii) A transfer in contravention of S. 27 of Regulation III of 1872 with regard to which the prescriptive period of 12 years has not elapsed on the 1st of Nov. 1949. In such a case time for perfecting title by adverse possession would in law stop running from the date of the enforcement of the Act on Nov. 1, 1949, and If the prescriptive period of 12 years is not completed before that, the right or title would remain inchoate and cannot be perfected thereafter by virtue of adverse possession. This would follow from proposition (iv) of the Full Bench in Bhaurilal Jain's case (supra). In such a case the Deputy Commissioner under S. 42 of the Act read with the other relevant provisions may at any time on his own motion or on an application made to him pass an order ejecting the transferee holding the transfer in contravention of the statute. (iii) A transfer in contravention of S. 27 of Regulation III of 1872 in which the transferee has been in continuous adverse cultivating possession for 12 years prior to the 1st of Nov. 1949. In view of cl. (a) of the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 27 of the said Regulation, the transferee herein became immune to eviction if he had been in continuous cultivating possession for 12 years. He was thus allowed to perfect his title by way of adverse possession. This equally follows from proposition (v) in Bhaurilal Jain's case laying down ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 29 that the provisions of S. 20 were prospective and not retrospective in effect and consequently they would not invalidate the title already perfected by adverse possession under Regulation III of 1872 despite its repeal and substitution on 1st Nov. 1949 by S. 20 of the Act. 21. To finally conclude: The answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that the prescriptive period of 12 years for perfecting the title by adverse possession (in case of a transfer which was originally in contravention of S. 27 of Regulation III of 1872) would stop running on the date of the enforcement of the Act on 1st Nov. 1949.” 32. In the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Narayan Sah reported in 1975 SCC Online Pat 14 decided on 07.02.1975, the Hon’ble Patna High Court considered the argument that there was no power in the revenue authorities to annul the decree of civil court under the Act of 1949. It was also argued that by Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1971 (Bihar Regulation 1 of 1972), which amended Section 20 of 1949 Act, power was given to the revenue authorities for the first time to annul a decree passed in a civil suit by fraud or collusion. 33. The court took into consideration the amendment of Section 20 of Bihar Act of 1949 wherein, in Sub-section 5 of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act of 1949, as substituted by Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 after the words “any fraudulent method” the words “including decrees obtained in suit by fraud or conclusion” were inserted. 34. The Hon’ble Patna High Court held that the expression “including decree obtained in suit by fraud or collusion” only elucidated and clarified the position in this regard. The Hon’ble Patna High Court 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 before a court to effect transfer in contravention of the Act. Such an act of the parties would be nothing but a fraud on court as well as a fraud against statute. Apart from being a case of transfer in contravention of the Act, it will also be a case of transfer by fraudulent method and clearly within the ambit of sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act even without the amendment by Regulation 1 of 1972. It was ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 30 held that in view of the findings recorded by the revenue authorities, there was no scope for taking a different position from the finding that the eviction could be made by the revenue authorities for contravention of the provision of the Act, and ultimately, dismissed the writ petition. 35. In the present case, the claim of the plaintiff with respect to possession of the suit property rested on kurfa settlement and the kurfa settlement was dated 15.05.1948. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it was clearly averred that they came in possession by virtue of kurfa settlement. This pleading has been taken note of by the learned court while passing the impugned judgements. In view of the judgements discussed above, there is no doubt that transfer through any means in contravention of the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy including Kurfa Settlement is illegal and at best adverse possession can be claimed if the transferee has completed 12 years prior to coming into force of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949. Admittedly, by virtue of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, which came into effect from 1.11.1949 when the right to acquire property through adverse possession was taken away. 36. There are concurrent findings of both the learned courts wherein they have disbelieved the kurfa settlement and have considered the consequences even if the Kurfa was to be believed. On 15.05.1948 [the alleged date of Kurfa] , the period of 12 years in order to claim adverse possession under Santhal Pargana Tenancy Regulation III of 1872 had not completed by 01.11.1949. The possession, as per the plaint was from the date of kurfa settlement, which upon calculation would come to about 1 ½ years only as on 01.11.1949. As per the aforesaid judgements, 12 years of possession having not been completed till 01.11.1949, the plaintiff could not have acquired title by adverse possession as vide Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949, which came into force on 1.11.1949, the right to acquire title over the property through adverse possession was taken away. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 31 37. The learned trial court, while taking into consideration the Suit No.125/1968 (Exhibit 7) observed that the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Revenue Misc. Appeal No.172 of 1970-71 held that the title suit was collusive, against which, the Revision No.10 of 1971- 1972 was also dismissed. 38. The learned trial court, after considering the materials, held that kurfanama (Exhibit 2) was doubtful and even if the kurfanama was accepted to be valid, the plaintiff had not completed 12 years prior to coming into force of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 and dismissed the suit. The learned trial court also observed that the plaintiff sought an amendment to the plaint to introduce the plea of adverse possession, which was rejected vide order dated 22.02.2003. 39. The Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was filed by Sk. Chhedi, Bibi Gafina and Bibi Jaitoon against Jar Ali seeking recovery of possession of the suit property was dismissed vide judgement dated 04.11.1968 (exhibit-7) by the court of Deputy Collector. The case of the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was that the suit lands were recorded in the name of Sk. Sanjho and other and Sk. Sanjho was father of the plaintiffs of the said suit who had given the suit land to Jar Ali for cultivation but he was not giving the land back to the plaintiffs. Jar Ali claimed the land through Kurfa and also claimed that he paid rent to the plaintiffs and exhibited Kurfa and rent receipts as exhibit A, B and B/1 and claimed that he was in possession since last 18 years. The Deputy Collector while deciding the Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 held that Jar Ali was in possession for more than 12 years and held that Jar Ali had acquired full tenancy right by adverse possession for more than 12 years as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 40. Even if the judgement passed by the Deputy Collector in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 is taken into consideration, then the possession of Jar Ali was since 18 years, which would relate back to the year 1950 only and what has been recorded as finding in the judgement is only tenancy right by virtue of Kurfanama for more than 12 years which has been taken as adverse possession but there is no finding that title over the suit property was perfected by adverse possession . ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 32 41. As per the judicial pronouncement discussed above, transfer by Kurfanama is itself an illegal transfer even under Santhal Pargana Regulation of 1872 and a person could have perfected his title by adverse possession even if he came in possession by virtue of Kurfanama. It is not even the case of the appellants that the transfer by Kurfanama is a valid transfer, rather they are claiming adverse possession by referring to Kurfanama. It is not in dispute that the land in santhal pargana are non-transferrable. 42. Upon coming into force of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 the right to acquire title by adverse possession has been taken away and in the aforesaid Judgments it has been held that even in cases of Kurfanama, if the illegal possession is found since prior to 12 years from 01.11.1949 (the date on which Act of 1949 came into force) the adverse possession has to be acknowledged and given effect to. It has been held that if 12 years of illegal possession is not completed by 01.11.1949 the title by adverse possession cannot be acquired. 43. Upon reading of judgment passed by the Deputy Collector in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 what has been acknowledged is tenancy by adverse possession or the strength of Kurfanama and not title over the suit property by adverse possession that too taking 18 years back from 1968 would be only from 1950. Further this is over and above the fact that the contesting defendant in the present case was the descendant of one amongst the recorded tenants and neither he nor his ancestors were party to Title Suit No. 125 of 1968. 44. Thus, the argument of the appellants (plaintiffs) that adverse possession of Jar Ali with respect to title over the property was declared in title Suit no. 125 of 1968 is not correct on the face of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968. What was declared in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was that tenancy right was created 18 years prior to 1968 and thus 18 years prior to 1968 was 1950 and no adverse possession could be claimed unless 12 years had elapsed prior to 01.11.1949 when the aforesaid Act of 1949, taking away the right to claim adverse possession, came into force. ( 2026:JHHC:24729 ) 33 45. Upon going through the judgement passed by the learned 1st appellate court in title appeal no. 15 of 2003 (renumbered as title appeal no. 5 of 2004) upholding the judgement passed in the title suit no. 73 of 1975 (renumbered as title suit no. 10 of 1992) this court finds that the judgment passed by the deputy collector in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 has been duly taken into consideration and it has been found that alleged transfer through Kurfanama dated 15.05.1948 was contrary to the statute and the revenue authorities have also held that the transfer was contrary to the statute and Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 was collusive. The learned court have also held that considering the pleading in the plaint the plaintiff had not completed the period of 12 years prior to coming into force of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (supplementary provisions) Act, 1949 and could not claim title by adverse possession. 46. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the sole substantial question of law as framed by this court is answered against the appellants (plaintiffs) by holding that the learned courts have correctly appreciated the judgement passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1968 along with other materials on record while dismissing the suit. 47. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 48. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 49. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order:17.08.2026 Dae of Uploading 18.08.2026 Binit/ /