2026:JHHC:208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 83 of 2021 Jagdish Rana, aged about 68 years, S/o late Chetlal Rana, R/o village Barkakala, P.S.+P.O Ichak, Dist- Hazaribagh. … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Basudeo Mahato S/o Late Luthan Mahato, age not known R/o vill- Barkakala, P.S+ P.O.- Ichak & Dist- Hazaribagh 2. Sona Mahato s/o Late Luthan Mahato, age not known R/o vill- Barkakala, P.S+P.O.- Ichak & Dist-Hazaribagh. … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 3. Mosomat Dhani, aged - not known, w/o late Bhola Rana, R/o village Barkakala, P.S.+P.O. Ichak, Dist- Hazaribagh 4. Manoj Kumar Rana, aged not known S/o late Bhola Rana, R/o village Barkakala, P.S.+P.o. Ichak, Dist- Hazaribagh 5. Raj kumar Rana, aged- not known, S/o late Bhola Rana, R/o village Barkakala, P.S. +PO Ichak, Dist- Hazaribagh 6. Jashwant Kumar Rana, aged not known, s/o late Bhola Rana, R/o village Barkakala, P.S.+P.O. Ichak, Dist- Hazaribagh 7. Neman Rana, aged - not known, S/o late Chetlal Rana, R/o village Barkakala, P.S. +Po Ichak, Dist- Hazaribagh … … Plaintiffs/ Appellants/ Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjit Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. S. Raza, Advocate : Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 17/06.01.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2021 and 09.07.2021 respectively passed by learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh in Civil Appeal (Title) No. 43 of 2019 whereby the learned 1st appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2019 and 22.05.2019 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-IV, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 139 of 2013. The suit was dismissed, 1st appeal was also dismissed and consequently, the plaintiff no.2 is the appellant before this Court. 2026:JHHC:208 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court had primarily dismissed the suit by holding that there is no valid cause of action. He has referred to I.A. No. 70 of 2026 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to adduce additional evidence before this Court and has submitted that further case has been filed by the plaintiff who is the appellant before this Court being Case No. 520 of 2023. He submits that said proceeding under section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was initiated on 29.12.2023 and the case number was 520 of 2023. The learned counsel submits that there is an Anchal Amin report dated 26.12.2024 which is an important piece of evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to another I.A. No. 12328 of 2025 seeking to adduce additional evidence by referring to order dated 17.02.2022 passed in case no. 16 of 2021 by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribagh under section 147 of Cr.P.C. and has submitted that the said case was dropped by the authority by observing that the aggrieved parties may knock the door of civil court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances. The learned counsel has submitted that there is a valid cause of action and therefore, the judgments passed by both the learned courts holding that there was no valid cause of action, are perverse and accordingly, a substantial question of law be framed taking into account the aforesaid two petitions seeking to adduce additional evidence. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the suit was instituted as back as in the year 2013 showing the cause of action arose on 20.06.2013 and 05.12.2013. The plaintiff claimed adjudication of right, title and possession over schedule-A property and also made a prayer that Khas possession be given to the plaintiff over schedule-B property which is part and parcel of schedule-A property and it was prayed that the defendant be directed not to put any illegal construction over schedule-B property. 6. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: 2026:JHHC:208 3 “1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the present suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation and Adverse possession? 4. Whether the suit is barred by Law of Estoppel, Waiver and Acquiescence? 5. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act? 6. Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of title and confirmation of possession in their favour over Schedule-A land as described in plaint and as prayed for? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for khas possession by evicting the defendants from Schedule B lands and demolishing the illegal construction at the cost of the defendants. 9. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief as claimed for? 10. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief or reliefs?” 7. The learned trial court ultimately recorded that there was no cause of action to file the suit and decided issue nos.1 and 2 against the appellant/plaintiff. The learned court while deciding issue no. 1 and 2 referred to the discussions made with respect to issue no. 7. The discussions under issue no.7 and issue nos. 1 & 2 are quoted as under: “ISSUE No 7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants' mother had sold the land more fully described in Schedule B of the plaint vide sale deed marked as Exhibit 1/b which the defendants do not deny. However the plaintiffs claim that on 20.06.2013 the defendant basudeo mahto began to lay foundation over the Schedule b lands because of which a case with SDM, hazaribagh was also instituted under Section 144 CrPC vide Misc Case No. 194/13 wherein it is alleged that the defendants in their show cause falsely claimed lands in plot no. 1322 and when the case was dropped the defendant became emboldened and started construction over schedule B lands on 05.12.2013 and hence the present suit was filed. The defendants seek declaration over entire Schedule A land and have brought on record various sale deeds through which they claim that they have purchased the suit land. However the plaintiffs have 2026:JHHC:208 4 themselves submitted that the defendants have encroached upon lands in Schedule B and not all lands of Schedule A. A suit for declaration of title can be filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which provides that "Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so." Therefore the suit to be maintainable the plaintiff has to allege and prove that the defendant has denied or is interested in denying the legal character or right to property before the filing of the suit. A general declaration cannot be granted unless it is sought against a person denying or interested in denying the right or title of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiffs do not have any cause of action to seek declaration over lands described in khata no. 42 plot no. 1341, khata no. 133 plot no. 1342 and khata no. 61 plot no. 1343 as they themselves have not made any submission with respect to the fact of the defendants denied their title instead the plaintiffs in para 11 have submitted that the defendants made no claims over lands of plot no. 1341, 1342 and 1343 and a relief for declaration will not lie since the title of the plaintiff is not disputed by the defendant as has been submitted by the plaintiffs themselves and as to how a cloud of doubt has been cast over their title. Now coming to the question of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration over lands described in Schedule A of the plaint which they claim have been denied by the defendants in their show cause filed on Mutation case no. 194/2013. The plaintiffs have not brought on record any documentary evidence to show that a show cause as mentioned in para 11 of the plaint had been filed by the plaintiff wherein they had denied the right of the plaintiff over the lands described in Schedule A of the plaint. Further the defendants have admitted the sale of 4 decimils of land by their mother to the father of the plaintiff vide sale deed marked as Exhibit 1/b, however they deny the plaintiffs submission (para 5 of plaint) that their father Tukhari had been granted 2026:JHHC:208 5 only 6 decimils of land from the entire 48 decimils of land and rest 42 was granted to Luthan Mahto as per a partition in the year 1950. The plaintiffs have brought no documentary or oral evidence of the partition on record in support of the same nor the fact that the defendants now because of the alleged partition owned no more lands in khata no. 71 plot no. 1322 as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendants have denied the partition and have submitted Exhibit A and A/1 showing distribution of shares among him and his brothers, however both the alleged partition deeds have been made after the present suit was filed. Hence there is nothing on record to show that the defendants have been illegally claiming any right over property described in schedule B of the plaint as submitted by the plaintiff. Hence this issue is decided against the plaintiffs. ………. ISSUE No 1 and 2 are taken up together for consideration since they are corelated with each other and in the light of the issue no. 7 discussed above it is apparent that the plaintiff had no cause of action to institute the suit as cause of action itself has not been established by the plaintiff and hence the suit is not maintainable in its present form nor do they have a valid cause of action.” 8. The plaintiffs filed appeal. The learned 1st appellate court framed following points for determination: “(I) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in their favour over Schedule ‘A’ land as described in the plaint. (II) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Khas possession by evicting the defendants from Schedule ‘B’ land and demolishing the illegal construction at the costs of defendants. (III) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the present suit.” 9. While considering the point of determination no. (I), the learned 1st appellate court also considered the provisions of section 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act and ultimately held that the suit was not maintainable. The findings of the learned 1st appellate court are as under: 2026:JHHC:208 6 “In the case in hand, simple perusal of plaint as well as evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs, it is clear that there is no whisper about the fact by the plaintiffs that how the cloud has been casted by any act of the defendants qua the first category of three piece of suit land i.e. land in plot no.1341 Khata no. 42, Plot no. 1342 Khata no.133 and Plot no.1343 Khata no.61. In view of legal discussion in preceding paragraph, it is clear that to get the declaratory relief, plaintiffs have, not only to brought on record the document qua the ownership of the land rather it has to be brought on record that his ownership or possessory right is disputed by the defendants and regarding aforesaid three piece of suit land, there is no material at all available on the record, which could even remotely suggests that defendants have ever disputed the title and/or possession of the plaintiffs qua the aforesaid land. As such, as far as these piece of suit lands as mentioned in Annexure 'A' of the plaint are concerned, I find and hold that plaintiffs are not entitled to get declaration of title and confirmation of possession qua the 0.06 acre of land of plot no.1341 Khata no. 24 (vide Ext.1/a), 0.04 acre of land of Plot no.1342 Khata no.133 (vide Ext.1/c) and 0.05 acre of land of Plot no.1343, Khata no.61 (vide Ext.-1). Now I would like to come to second category of land of Annexure 'A' of plaint. I have discussed at length the evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs and defendants qua 0.04 acre of land of Plot no.1322, Khata no.71, in preceding paragraphs. Now I would like to state that first incident which allegedly casted cloud on the ownership, right of plaintiffs qua the land of Plot no.1322 as narrated by plaintiffs in their plaint is of 13.06.2013 and it is also stated by plaintiffs that on account of that, they approached the police station and initiated proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C before ld. S.D.M., Hazaribag, but it is very strange that these two papers i.e. complaint/application to the P.S. and proceeding of 144 Cr.P.C before ld. S.D.M, Hazaribag has not been brought on record by the plaintiffs, reason best known to them. Another alleged incident cited by plaintiffs is of 05.12.2013, for which, it is stated that defendants started construction over Khata no.71 Plot no.1322 and plaintiffs intimated the police station, but that complaint/application which was given to police station has also not been brought on record. These are instances cited by the plaintiffs through which plaintiffs tried to brought on record the fact that act of the defendants cast cloud on the right, title and interest over 4 decimal of land of Plot no.1322 Khata no.71. Per contra, defendants has stated in written statement as well as evidence brought on record 2026:JHHC:208 7 from the mouth of the witnesses, that 4 decimal of land is in possession of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs want to grab more land, as such the present case has been filed before ld. court below. In Hari Singh Munda & Ors. Vs Dondo Munda & Ors case, issue before the Hon’ble Patna High Court was “entitlement of further relief” of plaintiffs; whereas, in case “Asstt. Branch Manager Vs Shanti Swarup Sharma” the matter was related to resignation of plaintiffs. Therefore, ratio of precedents relied upon by the appellants/Plaintiffs is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Ld. counsel for the Appellants during the course of argument pointed out Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and tried to convince this court that this provision speaks about two sets of person against whom plaintiffs can bring suit under this provision. First set of person is “who is denying,” this makes reference for the present time denial and second set of person is “who is interested to deny”, this makes reference for the denial may be in future. This court is not convince with the submission advanced by ld. counsel, on account of fact that the explanation of Section-34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 clarify, who is the person interested to deny. It says, “A trustee of property is a “person interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.” Therefore, denial by the defendant to any right as to any property of plaintiff is actual and existing one and it cannot be for future reference of time, meaning thereby, that defendant may deny the right to the property of plaintiffs in future, cannot and should not be a ground to bring suit under this provision against the defendant. Ld. counsel for Appellants also urged with full vigour that when plaintiffs brought on record four sale deeds of suit lands and fact of ownership right and possessory right to the suit property is not denied by the defendants rather it is admitted by the defendants, then, there is no reason before this court, in not allowing the present appeal. Again, as far as this aspect is concerned, in preceding paragraph, I have discussed at length that to get decree of declaration of title from the court, plaintiff has to bring on record denial on the part of defendants qua the right, title, interest and/or possession of the property of plaintiff. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of considered view that plaintiffs were not able to brought on record any convincing material which could convince the court that acts of the defendants created cloud on their right, title and interest of plaintiffs in 0.4 decimal of land of Khata no.1322 Plot no.71 and unless and until this fact has not been brought on 2026:JHHC:208 8 record which could genuinely indicate regarding the threat to the right and title of the suit land of the plaintiffs, this equitable relief ought not be granted by this court, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in their favour over second category of land of Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint which is also included Schedule 'B' land.” 10. The learned Court thereafter took up point of determination no. (II) which was dealing with schedule-B property and ultimately held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants encroached on schedule-B land of the plaintiffs and constructed a small house. It was held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for Khas possession by evicting the defendants from schedule-B property. The findings are as under: “…There is no probable evidence either oral or documentary brought on record by the plaintiffs regarding manner and extent of encroachment by the defendants in Schedule 'B' land of the plaintiffs. From perusal of L.C.R it appears that at the fag end of trial i.e. at the stage of final argument, Plaintiffs/Appellants filed petition under Order 26 Rule 10A C.P.C, 1908 for appointment of Commission but the same was dismissed vide order dt. 22.04.219 and thereafter, the said impugned order has not been challenged by Appellants/Plaintiffs at any stage. In fact, plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants encroached in the Schedule 'B' land of plaintiffs and constructed small house. So I find and hold that plaintiffs are not entitled for khas possession by evicting defendants from Schedule 'B' land and demolishing the illegal construction at the cost of defendants.” 11. While considering the point of determination no. (III), the learned 1st appellate court recorded that there is no valid cause of action and ultimately, upheld the judgment of the learned trial court. 12. This Court finds that both the learned courts have considered the materials on record and have given concurrent findings, interalia, regarding absence of cause of action to file the suit and have dismissed the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed out any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned courts. This court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in this case. 2026:JHHC:208 9 13. So far as additional evidences which are sought to be brought on record by filing aforesaid interlocutory applications are concerned, the same are relating to subsequent events after filing of the suit. There can be no doubt that the cause of action with respect to a suit has to be decided as it existed on the date of filing of the suit. Any subsequent development giving rise to cause of action cannot be taken into consideration in the present case. There is no substantial question of law involved in this 2nd appeal which is hereby dismissed. 14. I.A. No. 12328 of 2025 and I.A. No. 70 of 2026 seeking to adduce additional evidence are also dismissed. 15. Other pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 16. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through ‘FAX/email’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order:06.01.2026 Pankaj Date of uploading:12.01.2026