2026:JHHC:154 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 205 of 2010 Bajrang Ram, S/o Late Lato Ram and Mosomat Tekni Devi, resident of-Kani Bazar, Munka Bagicha, 6 Lane, P.O. & P.S. & District- Hazaribag. … … Appellant/Appellant/Defendant Versus 1. Amit Kumar 2. Sumeet Kumar 3. Nitish Kumar 4. Manish Kumar All Respondents (1) to (4) are sons of Binod Kumar Sinha, resident of New Colony, Kumhartoli, P.O.- Kumhartoli, P.S. & District- Hazaribag 5. Binod Kumar Sinha S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Sinha, resident of New Colony, Kumhartoli, P.O.- Kumhartoli, P.S. & District- Hazaribag. (Dead, Deleted vide order dated 08.08.2022) … … Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Awanish Shankar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush Lala, Advocate --- 32/06.01.2026 1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.11.2010 (decree signed on 01.12.2010) passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-VI Hazaribag in Eviction Appeal No. 09 of 2008 affirming the judgment dated 23.09.2008 (decree signed on 03.10.2008) passed by learned Additional Munsif, Hazaribag in Eviction Suit No. 09 of 1996. 2. The eviction suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the defendant is the appellant before this Court. I.A. No. 17442 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that I.A. No. 17442 of 2025 has been filed for framing additional substantial question of law. 2026:JHHC:154 2 4. While referring to the additional substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has only relied upon the additional substantial question of law No. (iv) which is quoted as under: - “iv. Whether learned courts below failed to appreciate that plaintiff only to circumvent the Ex-parte decree dated 14.02.1996 passed in T.S. No. 37 of 1995, instituted Eviction Suit No. 09 of 1996, which itself was not maintainable?” The learned counsel has submitted that earlier one Title Suit was filed by Chameli Devi wife of Bajrang Ram against Most. Tekni Devi and Smt. Ranu Rani wherein a prayer was made for declaring that the Defendant No. (2) Ranu Rani did not acquire any title vide Deed No. 2152 dated 14.03.1995 and also for declaring that the said deed is illegal. He submits that the suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 37 of 1995 which was instituted on 25.04.1995 and the judgment was passed on 14.02.1996 and the decree was drawn on 26.02.1996. The suit was decreed ex-parte by holding that Defendant No.2 of the said case had not acquired any title with respect to the suit property by virtue of sale Deed No. 2152 dated 14.03.1995. The schedule of the property in the said suit described in Schedule-A was as under:- Schedule- “A” Thana No.141, Khata No.154, Plot No.379, Area 2 ½ decimals out of 6 decimals, Mohalla- Munka Bagicha, P.S. and District- Hazaribagh. Bounded as North-Rasta, South- Vacant land, East-House of Tekni Devi, West- Vacant land. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that since the registered Sale Deed No. 2152 dated 14.03.1995 was subject matter of consideration in the earlier Suit and it was held that the Defendant No. 2 in the said suit namely, Smt. Ranu Rani had not acquired any title by virtue of the said registered sale deed, therefore the present eviction suit filed by Smt. Ranu Rani and her husband seeking eviction of Bajrang Ram S/o Most. Tekni Devi was itself not maintainable. He submits that accordingly the proposed additional substantial question of law no. 2026:JHHC:154 3 (iv) be framed as the learned courts have failed to appreciate that the present suit was filed only to circumvent the ex-parte judgment dated 14.02.1996 and decree dated 26.02.1996 passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 1995. No other proposed additional substantial question of law has been pressed during the course of argument. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer of appellant and he has submitted that Chameli Devi claimed certain property from Tekni Devi stating that she acquired the same through Batwaranama and it was the said property which was subject matter of consideration in the earlier title suit. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the certified copy of judgment of the earlier title suit has also been exhibited and marked as Exhibit-B. He has placed the said judgment and has submitted that the court was clear in the earlier title suit that the property which was claimed by Chameli Devi through Batwaranama was different from the property which was involved in the Sale Deed No. 2152 dated 14.03.1995. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the learned 1st appellate court in internal page No.8 and a clear finding has been recorded that it could not be said that the suit premises involved in the present eviction case was subject matter of Batwaranama and hence, the pleading in written statement that the defendant/appellant has been residing in the subject property of the eviction suit on the basis of Batwaranama had no leg to stand. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Exhibit-B was based on Batwarnama and the suit premises in the present case is distinct and therefore, no additional substantial question of law arises in this case. The finding recorded by the learned 1st appellate court is essentially a question of fact which has been considered after appreciating the materials on record. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C and also the discussions made by the learned 1st appellate court, it is apparent that the plaintiff Chameli 2026:JHHC:154 4 Devi in Title Suit No.37 of 1995 was claiming a portion of property of her mother-in-law Tekni Devi through Batwaranama and the identity of the property involved in the present case in connection with the registered sale deed dated 14.03.1995 is different and such finding of fact has been duly recorded by the learned court. Further, substantial question of law in connection with alleged misconstruction of Exhibit B and C has already been framed earlier. 8. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid additional substantial question of law which has been proposed to be framed through the Interlocutory Application No.17442 of 2025 is devoid upon any merits and accordingly the same is rejected. S.A. No. 205 of 2010 9. The learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments on the merits of the case by referring to the substantial questions of law mentioned in order dated 09.10.2014 which are as follows:- Para ‘C’- Whether while affirming the Judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the learned lower Appellate Court committed gross illegality in ignoring exhibit 4/a, the recital of the sale deed which does not disclose anything about the alleged deed of agreement and also about adjustment of Rs. 17000/- paid at the time of alleged agreement ? Para ‘D’- Whether while affirming the Judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the learned lower Appellate Court erred in misconstruing Exhibit B and C, Judgment and decree passed in Title Suit 37/95, which held that the Respondents did not acquire any valid title on the basis of the sale deed on the disputed land and house ? 10. By referring to the 1st substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the sale deed there is no disclosure about the earlier agreement of sale (Exhibit-4/A) by which the plaintiff claimed that the agreement of sale was entered and amount of Rs. 17,000/- was paid at time of agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under such circumstances, the sale deed dated 14.03.1995 itself is invalid in the eyes of law as the sale consideration has not been mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, 2026:JHHC:154 5 the plaintiffs could not claim to be the landlord with respect to the suit property on the basis of the sale deed (Exhibit-4). 11. While responding to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the sale deed dated 14.03.1995 has not been challenged by filing any counter claim in the suit and the sale deed having been executed by Most. Tekni Devi cannot be challenged by referring to the agreement of sale which preceded the sale deed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there are concurrent findings by both the courts that there was landlord- tenant relationship between the parties and there was also a finding that the defendant was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and therefore, the 1st substantial question of law has no bearing in the matter. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that Tekni Devi never challenged the sale deed executed by her in favour of the plaintiff. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties with respect to the 1st substantial question of law, this Court finds that admittedly the sale deed executed by Tekni Devi in favour of the plaintiff was never challenged by Tekni Devi. The learned 1st appellate court has taken note of this aspect of the matter and has recorded in internal page No.7 of the judgment that Most. Tekni Devi never challenged the sale deed, nor brought any suit for its cancellation on the ground that the plaintiff had taken undue advantage of her illness and illiteracy and got the sale deed registered in place of the pronote after giving some cash to her as pleaded in para 12 of the written statement by the defendant. The learned court has held that the plea of the defendant as raised in paragraph 12 of the written statement stood disproved. The findings of the learned 1st appellate court in this connection is quoted as under:- “........................ Now the best witness to approve or deny the existence of agreement to sale executed in favour of plaintiff No.1-Ranu Rani is none else but the mother of appellant but 2026:JHHC:154 6 she has not been produced and examined rather was purposely withheld by appellant, while appellant has admitted that in para 10 of his cross examination that his mother is still alive. Further the other witness to this agreement is also none else but the brother of appellant who has also not been produced and examined in this case as witness, hence there be no option with this court but to draw adverse inference u/s 114(g) I.E. Act against appellant on this point. Thus it can be irresistibly inferred that agreement for sale was rightly executed by the mother of appellant in favour of Ranu Rani in which appellant and his brother had put their signatures as witnesses. At this juncture it is apparent that the date of agreement to sale 18.01.95 (Exhibit-1) is earlier to the date of sada Batwaranama (Exhibit-E) 01.03.95 brought on record by appellant, which communicates the very purpose of withholding and non- examining the most important witnesses namely Tekni Devi (Executant of agreement for sale i.e. Exhibit-1) and Pradeep Ram [witness of said agreement] by the appellant. ...................................................................................................... .............................. Further on behalf of plaintiffs/respondents, a registered sale deed No.2152 dated 02.05.1995 has been proved and exhibited as Exhibit-4. On perusal of sale deed, it reveals that Mossomat Tekani Devi executed this deed in favour of Ranu Rani (Plaintiff No.1- now deceased) for 0.02 ½ acres rayati land of plot No.379 under Khata No.154 of village Harai, Thana No. 141 including Kuccha tiled house bounded by North Road, South-Ramu Kumhar, East-Simitra Devi and West-Basanti Devi. A map locating the subject matter of the sale deed has been also appended with this deed for its clear description. On comparing the subject matter of agreement for sale and this sale deed, I find that the subject matter of both documents appear to be one and same, which has been described in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, meaning thereby plaintiffs have brought this suit on their purchased land and house. Now on the perusal of entire record, it reveals that Mossomat Tekni Devi has never challenged this sale deed nor brought any suit for its cancellation on the grounds that Ranu Rani had taken undue advantage of her illness and illiteracy and got a sale deed registered in place of the pronote after giving some case to her as pleaded in para 12 of written statement by defendant/appellant. Hence this plea of appellant remained disproved and the case of plaintiffs/respondents that property mentioned in schedule ‘A’ of plaint was purchased by 2026:JHHC:154 7 Ranu Rani original plaintiff No.1 from Mossomat Tekni Devi has substantial strength of its validity and proof. 15. This Court finds that admittedly the suit was filed seeking eviction under the special act i.e. Bihar Building Lease Control Eviction Act, 1882 and the plaintiffs claimed title over the property by virtue of the registered Sale Deed No.2152 dated 14.03.1995 (Exhibit- 4). The defendant did not file any counter claim challenging the validity of the registered sale deed and the execution of the sale deed was not in dispute. However, the defendant raised a plea that the plaintiffs took advantage of illness and illiteracy of Most. Tekni Devi and got a sale deed registered. Admittedly Tekni Devi never challenged the registered sale deed. This Court is of the view that such plea has been rightly rejected by the learned 1st appellate court vide discussion as quoted above. 16. This Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances when Tekni Devi never challenged the sale deed and even the defendant never challenged the sale deed by cross objection or by a separate suit or by counter claim and merely because the recital in the sale deed did not refer to the agreement of sale/payment of part consideration at the time of agreement of sale, the same has no bearing with respect to the legality and validity of the sale deed (Exhibit-4). 17. In such circumstances, the 1st substantial question of law is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. 18. With respect to 2nd substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has fully placed Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C and has submitted that in Title Suit No. 37 of 1995 wherein the judgment was passed vide ‘Exhibit-B’, it clearly reveals that the specific case of the plaintiff of that suit namely, Chameli Devi W/o Bajrang Ram was that the suit property in the said case with specific boundary was given to her in Batwarnama by her mother-in-law namely, Most. Tekni Devi and the area of the property was 2 ½ decimals. The 2026:JHHC:154 8 description of the property in the said earlier Title Suit No. 37 of 1995 has already been quoted above. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was asserted in the said Title Suit No. 37 of 1995 that the boundary was wrongly mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 14.03.1995 and it was also mentioned in the said suit that the Defendant No.2 namely, Ranu Rani had taken undue advantage of illness of Tekni Devi and had got the registered sale deed executed on 14.03.1995. The learned counsel submitted that inspite of service of notice neither Tekni Devi, nor Ranu Rani appeared in the said suit and ultimately the suit was decreed in favour of Chameli Devi. Learned counsel has also submitted that Exhibit-C is the decree arising out of the said title suit. He submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the court while decreeing the eviction suit and therefore, the learned courts have misconstrued Exhibit-B and C while passing the judgment. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the earlier title suit the sale deed dated 14.03.1995 was not declared to be null and void, rather the decree was passed only to the extent that the property sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 will not affect the right of Chameli Devi in connection with the suit property mentioned therein. The learned counsel has submitted that in the earlier suit, towards the east, the house of Tekni Devi was shown. 21. He has further submitted that in the present case, the learned court has taken into consideration that the boundary mentioned in the earlier suit is different from the boundary mentioned in the present suit and in the present case 2 ½ decimals having Khapraposh house was sold in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 14.03.1995. 22. He submitted that since the identity of the property involved in the earlier title suit is different from the identity of the suit property involved in the present case, therefore, there has been no 2026:JHHC:154 9 misconstruction of Exhibit-B and C by the learned courts. Learned counsel has referred to the findings of the learned 1st appellate court in internal page 8 which is quoted as under:- “Description of the suit premises, incorporated in the plaint as well as written statement: According to case of respondents, the admitted owner Mosmat Tekani Devi (Mother of appellant) had transferred 0.02½ acres of land including two kachha rooms thereon out of 0.12 acres of land in plot No. 379 under khata No. 154 of village Harai on 13.03.95 by registered sale deed No. 2152. On the other hand, as per the case of appellant, his mother Mosmat Tekani Devi had partitioned her property and, in the partition, she had put Chameli Devi (wife of appellant) on the subject matter of suit by executing partition deed on 01.03.1995 duly registered before notary public, Hazaribag (Exhibit-E). Now it is important to see the subject matter of Batwaranama dated 01.03.1995. “Exhibit E” unveils that 0.02½ acres of land including metalled house and well thereon out of 0.12 acres of land in plot No. 379 under khata No. 154 of village Harai. The chart showing the comparison of boundary of the land purchased by respondent as well as land allotted to the wife of appellant in partition. Boundary of Schedule ‘A’ of plaint of this eviction suit Land allotted to appellant’s wife as per case of appellant South Ramu Kahar Vacant land North Road Road East Sumitra Devi House of Tekni Devi West Basanti Devi Vacant Land It is important to mention here that learned Munsif, Hazaribag has not declared the sale deed No.2152 executed in favour of Ranu Rani (plaintiff/respondent) is not null and void in the T.S 37/95 declaring that the subject matter sale deed 2152 is entirely different from the subject matter involved in this suit (T.S. 37/95) brought on the basis of batwaranama and no appeal against this finding, passed in T.S.37/95, has been filed by the wife of appellant namely Chamely Devi and hence the judgment and decree (ext B & C) attained the shape of its finality. Further it is also apparently clear from the batwaranama, which itself speaks that after granting 2½ 2026:JHHC:154 10 decimal land including house and well, some other house and land in 3 ½ decimal remained left with Tekani Devi, which is also manifest from the eastern boundary given in batwaranama (highlighted in previous para). Hence on this basis it can also not be said that Tekni Devi had no house to sale plaintiffs even after granting so called 2½ decimal land including house to appellant's wife by executing batwaranama and further it is not correct to say that Tekni Devi had no right, title and interest to alienate the suit premises to plaintiff no 1 (now deceased.) From the above discussions, I am of the considered view that appellant cannot said that the suit premises involved in this eviction case is subject matter of batwaranama and hence the admitted pleading in written statement of defendant / appellant that he has been residing in the subject matter of this eviction suit on the basis of batwaranama has no leg to stand.” 23. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in connection with the 2nd substantial question of law, this Court finds that in the earlier title suit bearing Title Suit No. 37 of 1995, the sale deed dated 14.03.1995 was not declared null and void, rather there was specific finding that the sale deed would not affect the claim of Chameli Devi with respect to the property acquired through Batwarnama. 24. This Court also finds that the boundary of the property which has been mentioned in the present case matches exactly with the boundary of the property mentioned in the sale deed and the boundary of the property mentioned in the earlier title suit is different from the boundary mentioned herein. It is also apparent that in the boundary of the property mentioned in the earlier title suit towards the east, the house of Tekni Devi was mentioned and it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased the property by virtue of registered sale deed a Khapraposh house which belonged to Tekni Devi. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has taken note of these aspects of the matter and has clearly recorded its finding that the property acquired by Chameli Devi through Batwarnama is different from the property involved in the sale deed dated 14.03.1995. 25. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned 1st appellate court has not erred in construing Exhibit- 2026:JHHC:154 11 B and Exhibit-C by coming to the findings recorded therein. Accordingly, the 2nd substantial question of law is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. 26. In view of the aforesaid findings, there is no merit in this 2nd appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 27. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 28. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/e-mail”. 29. The original records be sent back to the concerned court forthwith. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 06.01.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-02nd April, 2026.