2026:JHHC:11292 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 03 of 2013 ------ 1(a) K.K. Bansal 1(b) Niraj Bansal 1(c) Dhiraj Kumar Bansal Sons of Late Hari Ram Bansal, resident of Bansal Bhawan, Branch Ram Tekari Road, Itkhori Road, Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S. Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 1(d) Nirmala Devi, wife of Patram Dass, daughter of Late Hari Ram Bansal, Resident of 66/1, Model Town, New Delhi- 110009 1(e) Sarla Devi, wife of Late Om Prakash Agarwal, daughter of Late Hari Ram Bansal, resident of Gangotri Apartment, Ground Floor, Panchwati Complex, Kolkata-52 (West Bengal) 1(f) Urmila Devi, wife of Purshottam Dass, daughter of Late Hari Ram Bansal, resident of Badiya Road, P.O. and P.S Musabani, District East Singhbum 1(g) Kusum Lata, wife of Sarwan Kumar Agarwal, daughter of Hari Ram Bansal, resident of near Gaushala Chowk, North Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 1(h) Saraswati Devi, wife Late Gopal Prasad Agarwal, daughter Late Hari Ram Bansal, resident of Duplex Moon City, Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, District East Singhbhum 1(i) Shashi Devi, wife of Murlidhar Agarwal, daughter of Late Hari Ram Bansal, resident of C/o Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, D.A.V. School Lane, Birsa Road, Rourkella (Orissa) 1(j) Pushpa Devi, daughter of Hari Ram Bansal, resident of C/o S.K. Goyal, Goyal Medical, 216, G.T. Road, Liluah, Howrah (West Bengal) 1(k) Santosh, wife of Rakesh Kumar Garg, daughter of Late Hari Ram Bansal, resident of H. No.737, Ward No.10, Kalanour (Barapana), District Rohtak (Hariyana) .... .... …. Appellants Versus Manisha Bansal, wife of Late R.K. Bansal, resident of Branch Ram Tekari Road, Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S. Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum .... .... .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellants : Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Ms. Vaishnavi Kaushik, Advocate ------ 24/15.04.2026 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff/respondent/ appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 10th September, 2012 (decree signed on 15.09.2012) passed in Title Appeal No.15 of 2008 by learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby he has been pleased to allow the appeal in part and set aside the part of the judgment dated 27.02.2008 (decree signed on 2026:JHHC:11292 2 12.03.2008) in Eviction Suit No.05 of 2002 / Title Suit No.03 of 2003 by learned Sub Judge- I, Jamshedpur. 3. Title Suit No.03 of 2003 was instituted by the appellant herein being the plaintiff for a decree of eviction against the respondent/defendant on Schedule B property which is part and parcel of the property described in Schedule A property as detailed in the plaint, situated at Mouza Jugsalai, Khata No.360, Plot No.1366, Holding No.106, Town Jamshedpur. Originally, the said suit was instituted for eviction of a licensee which was registered as Eviction Suit No.05 of 2002 however, by an order dated 23.09.2002, the said suit was re-registered as Title Suit No.03 of 2003. 4. From the judgment of the learned Court, it transpires that the case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the land pertaining to Schedule A property was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1972 from Sabarmal Agrawal and the plaintiff came in possession thereon and his name was mutated in the Jugsalai Notified Area Committee and Schedule B property which is in possession of the defendant, is part and parcel of Schedule A property. Further, it was stated that husband of defendant namely Raj Kumar Bansal was one of the son of plaintiff, who died in the year 1999 leaving behind his wife (the defendant), one adopted son namely Dheeraj Kumar Bansal and daughters. It was further stated that the defendant before the death of her husband, started a Ladies Beauty Parlour in a portion of Schedule B property without the consent of the plaintiff and also obtained electric connection without consent of the plaintiff in November, 2000 and prior to that the said business was being run by electric generator and consequently, the Electricity Board sent an electric bill for electric consumption at commercial rate for which the plaintiff had to file a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and thereafter, plaintiff requested the defendant to stop the use of electricity in the said business. It was also averred that the defendant has filed a false case against the plaintiff under Section 498A of the IPC and another case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, it was stated that the plaintiff after his release on bail, sent a letter through his lawyer to the defendant requesting her to vacate the property described in Schedule B of the plaint within a month from the date of receipt of the letter, but in spite of receipt of said letter, the defendant did not vacate the Schedule B property, as such the cause of action arose in the month of November, 2000 when the defendant without consent of the 2026:JHHC:11292 3 plaintiff, took the electricity connection in the Beauty Parlour for which the plaintiff was asked to pay electric charge of whole of the building at commercial rate and subsequently, in August, 2001 and December, 2001, when the defendant filed a criminal cases against the plaintiff within jurisdiction of this Court. On valuing the suit to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and after paying ad valorem court fee, plaintiff prayed for a decree of eviction of the defendant from Schedule B property. 5. The case of the defendant as averred in the written statement noted in the judgment of learned courts is that the suit as framed, is not maintainable and the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and Principle of Estoppel, Waiver and Acquiescence and also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties such as State of Jharkhand and minor daughters of the plaintiff namely Rinky, Simpy and Dipti Bansal. Further, it was stated that the suit is under valued and its valuation is not less than Two Lakhs. Furthermore, it was stated that as a matter of fact, Raj Kumar Bansal, who was husband of the defendant, has contributed a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff in raising second and third floor of the suit house and the plaintiff in presence of respectable persons, orally allotted to the defendant one room, kitchen, bath room and latrine in the ground floor and one room in the first floor to Raj Kumar Bansal in the year 1988 and since then the defendant with her husband had been in exclusive possession thereon and in the room of ground floor, the defendant has been carrying a business of Beauty Parlour all along since more than 12 years. It was the further case that after unnatural death of husband of the defendant, the plaintiff and his eldest son, attempted to outrage the modesty of the defendant and on protest, the plaintiff assaulted the defendant. Furthermore, it was stated that the father of the defendant apart from marriage expenses, gifted a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the plaintiff for the benefit of the defendant which is still lying with the plaintiff and after death of husband of the defendant and before Punch, plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards the maintenance for the defendant and her three minor daughters, but the plaintiff did not care to comply the same, on the contrary, the plaintiff started abusing and ill- treating to the defendant as such the defendant was compelled to lodge G.R. Case No.2569 of 2001. Further, it was stated that the Beauty Parlour of the defendant is running without electricity since 1999, as such, it is false to 2026:JHHC:11292 4 say that defendant had consumed illegal connection of electricity. It was further case of the defendant that the plaintiff has no right to ask the defendant to vacate the suit premises because the defendant’s husband had contributed a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff to raise the second and third floor and rest of Rs.1,25,000/- given by the father of the defendant is also lying in the hands of the plaintiff, so it is absolutely false to state that the defendant’s possession is that of licensee under the plaintiff as such the question to vacate the Schedule B property does not arise. Further, because the defendant has been in continuous, uninterrupted exclusive possession of the aforesaid room since 26.11.1988 openly and adversely to the knowledge of the plaintiff and Sundry and she has also perfected title by adverse possession. 6. The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by way of issuing direction of eviction to the defendant/respondent herein by the judgment dated 27th February, 2008, passed by learned Sub Judge- I, Jamshedpur. Aggrieved with the said judgment, defendant/respondent preferred Title Appeal No.15 of 2008 which was decided by the judgment dated 10th September, 2012 by the learned Principal Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur setting aside the part of the judgment and decree. So far finding of the learned trial Court was that the defendant has not perfected her right, title, interest and possession over Schedule B property, was set aside on the ground of adverse possession. Aggrieved with the said judgment, plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present second appeal before this Court. 7. Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein submits that the learned first appellate court has wrongly interpreted the possession of the defendant/respondent herein and in view of that, the substantial question of law for admitting of this second appeal, is required to be framed. According to him, interpretation of a document is the substantial question of law and in view of that the present second appeal may kindly be admitted. 8. Title Appeal No.3 of 2003 was decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff herein by the judgment dated 27th February, 2008. The said judgment was questioned by the defendant/respondent herein in Title Appeal No.15 of 2008 which was allowed partly in favour of the defendant/respondent by the judgment dated 10th September, 2012 passed 2026:JHHC:11292 5 by the learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. Learned first appellate court has framed four points to decide the said appeal. Issue No.II is relevant with regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for admitting of the second appeal and that relates to “Whether the Defendant/respondent is in occupation of the Schedule B property and she has perfected her right, title and interest over the same by way of adverse possession or not? While deciding the said issue, the learned appellate court has considered the evidence of P.W. 1, who was the plaintiff. He has stated that he has purchased the suit property described in the Schedule A in the year 1972 and his name was also mutated in the office of Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee and he is paying tax to the said J.N.A.C. He has stated that the husband of defendant/respondent- Raj Kumar Bansal died in the year 1999 leaving behind the defendant/respondent and his daughters and one adopted son and they are residing in Schedule B property. He has also admitted that the defendant/respondent is running a Beauty Parlour in the portion of Schedule B property and also took electric connection for the Beauty Parlour without the permission of the plaintiff for which electricity bill was sent at commercial rate. He has denied that the husband of the defendant, Raj Kumar Bansal has paid Rs.70,000/- for construction of the house and he has further denied that the father of the defendant has paid Rs.1,25,000/-. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the house is three storied building and defendant/respondent has been provided three rooms. Two rooms in the ground floor and one room in the upper floor. He has also admitted that the defendant/respondent is the wife of his son, Raj Kumar Bansal. Learned first appellate court has further appreciated the other evidences as well as the exhibits. 9. Learned first appellate court has further considered the statement of D.W. 1, who is the present defendant. She has stated that the plaintiff/appellant is her father-in-law, who has filed the suit against her. She has also stated that her husband, Late Raj Kumar Bansal, on his own income, contributed Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff in presence of the witnesses to raise the second and third floor of the suit house. On 26.11.1988, the plaintiff allotted orally one room, kitchen, washroom and latrine in the ground floor and one room in the first floor to her husband as his exclusive portion and since then, she is in exclusive possession of the same. She has 2026:JHHC:11292 6 also stated that in the ground floor of the suit house, she is running Ladies Beauty Parlour all along for more than 12 years. She has also alleged that due to inhuman treatment by her father-in-law to the son, who was her husband, has died prematurely. She has also stated that Rs.1,25,000/- was paid by her father to the plaintiff/appellant. She has also stated before the court that one Panchayti was held in which the plaintiff/appellant has agreed to give Rs.1500/- to her as a monthly maintenance allowance which was however not paid to her. She has also stated that she has instituted a case under Section 498A of the IPC. She has denied that the electricity was consumed by her without payment of the electricity bill and her Beauty Parlour is being run without electricity and she used emergency light in the Beauty Parlour. She has also stated that she has perfected her title by adverse possession. In cross-examination, she has admitted that her marriage was solemnized in the year 1987 and since 1992, the Beauty Parlour is being run. When she came to the father-in-law’s house, that time it was two storied. In the year 1999, when her husband died, since then the electric and water supply line have been cut out. She has stated that in the building, there are 28 rooms. She has also denied the suggestion that her husband committed suicide. She has also stated that after 15 days of the death of her husband, dispute started and she was assaulted by her in-laws. 10. D.W. 2 namely Manilal Nayak has stated that the defendant/ respondent is the wife of Late Ram Kumar Bansal and she has been orally allotted one room, kitchen, latrine, washroom in the ground floor and one room in the first floor of the house and since then she is residing in the same till date. In the ground floor of the suit house, defendant/respondent is carrying her business of Beauty Parlour since long. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was visiting the house of the defendant, but he did not know the holding number as well as how many rooms are there. 11. D.W. 3- Rajesh Sonkar is said to be neighbor of the defendant/respondent and well known to the said family. He has also stated that Raj Kumar Bansal, out of his own savings, contributed Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff for construction of 2nd and 3rd floor and on 26.11.1988, the plaintiff has allotted one room, kitchen, latrine, washroom in the ground floor and one room in the first floor to the defendant’s husband as his exclusive portion and after the death of defendant’s husband, the defendant is enjoying the same in exclusive possession with her three minor 2026:JHHC:11292 7 daughters. He has also stated that she is also running a Ladies Beauty Parlour shop in the ground floor of the said suit house property. He has further stated that in the Panchayti, the plaintiff has agreed to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the defendant, but not paid and the defendant has filed a case under Section 498A of the IPC against the plaintiff. 12. D.W. 4- Deepak Kumar Sahu as well as D.W. 5- Raj Kumar Kedia have also stated in the same line. D.W. 6- Rajendra Kumar has further supported the case of the defendant. 13. Thereafter, the learned first appellate court has further considered the Sulahnama/Panchayatnama dated 27.03.2007 which has been brought on the record as an additional evidence. 14. In the light of the above discussions, the learned first appellate court has found that the Schedule A property was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1972 and thereafter, second and third floors were constructed. Raj Kumar Bansal was the son of the plaintiff/appellant and was the husband of the defendant/respondent. The marriage of Raj Kumar Bansal was solemnized in the year 1987. The tax receipts have further been considered. After the marriage, the defendant/respondent has started leaving along with the husband in the said property. In view of that, the learned first appellate court has found that during the life time of the husband of the defendant/respondent, the plaintiff allotted a portion of the house to the defendant for their residential purpose and this contention has been supported by the witnesses examined in the case as discussed hereinabove. The Schedule B property was allotted in the year 1988 to the defendant. The husband of the defendant was the son of the plaintiff, so he was residing with his father and during his life time, the defendant was doing business in the ground floor which was allotted by the plaintiff and there was cordial relationship. However, the dispute arose after the death of her husband of the defendant in the year 2000 due to electricity connection which further prolonged and one case has been lodged by the defendant under Section 498A of the IPC against the plaintiff. Prior to the death of the husband of the defendant, it was admitted case that the defendant was running Beauty Parlour in the plaintiff’s house allotted to them by the plaintiff and they were in exclusive possession over the same. The defendant/respondent was residing in the said portion along with her three daughters and son and was carrying the business. That fact has also been 2026:JHHC:11292 8 admitted by the plaintiff/appellant herein. The possession of the defendant over Schedule B property is still continuing. As an additional evidence being the Panchayatnama dated 27.03.2007 was further considered by the learned first appellate court, whereby it has been decided that the shop situated in the ground floor, which is in possession of the defendant, will be allotted to her along with two rooms including washrooms and urinal. Second portion will be in possession of the defendant. After the death of the plaintiff, his share will be shared equally with defendant and Krishn Kumar Bansal and it was also agreed in the said Panchayatnama that 20% of the electricity bill will be paid by the defendant and 80% by the plaintiff and his son Krishn Kumar Bansal and further, this agreement was signed by the plaintiff- Krishn Kumar Bansal as well as the defendant/respondent herein and in the light of this discussion, learned first appellate court has held that the defendant/respondent is in possession by way of adverse possession and accordingly, modified the judgment of the trial court passed in Title Suit No.3 of 2003 and set aside the part of the decree holding by the learned trial court that the defendant has not perfected her right, title and interest possession over Schedule B property. The said plea was also taken by the defendant/respondent before the learned trial court. Thus, on the point of possession, no contradictory point has been taken by the defendant herein. The learned first appellate court appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence, has come to that finding. On the basis of materials available on record as discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved to admit the present appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is hereby, dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands closed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 21.04.2026