2026:JHHC:5229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 394 of 2016 Ajay Kumar Gupta, S/o Suraj Kishore Gupta, R/o Boddom Bazar, District- Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S.& District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, At present residing at Ramnagar, near Bishnu Puri Chowk, P.O., P.S.& District- Hazaribagh. .... .. ... Appellants(s) Versus 1. Akhouri Bhujang Bhushan Sahay S/o late Akhauri Dhananda Prasad 2. (a) Agnesh Akhouri (b) Awinash Akhouri, both sons of late Akhouri Bijay Bhushan Sahay 3.Akhouri Bibhuti Bhushan Sahay S/o Akhauri Dhananad Prasad Sahay 4. Akhouri Gopalji Sahay 5. Akhouri Govindji Sahay Both sons of late Dhananad Prasad Sahay, all are R/o village Korra Jabra Road, P.O., P.S.& District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 6. Most. Mindri, Widow of late Billa Hazam, R/o Bodam Bazar, Kumhar Toli, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellants (s) : Mr. Anil Kr., Sr. Advocate Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Resp.(s) : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate …... 20/ 18.02.2026. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Defendant is in appeal against the judgment of affirmance by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.04 /2013 by which, the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Hazaribagh in Title Suit No.78 of 1995 in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents has been affirmed. 2. For convenience, party position shall be referred to according to their original placement in the suit, and shall include their heirs and legal representatives, substituted from time to time. 3. Plaintiff(s) filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit land, as detailed in Schedule –B of the plaint and for a decree of khas possession of it by evicting defendant no.1 from the same. Further, prayer was made for declaring the Sale-Deed No.9871 dated 16.08.1989 executed by defendant no.4 in favour of defendant No.1 to be illegal and wrong and not binding upon the plaintiff(s). 4. Schedule B land is part and parcel of Schedule-A. Schedule –A under Khata No.25, Plot No.117, measuring an area of 45 and half decimals of 2026:JHHC:5229 boundary given therein situated in Village: -Kadma No.1, PS- Katkamsandi & District- Hazaribag. 5. The admitted case of both the parties is that Pachuwa and Sahdeo Hazam and Ghuja Hazam were the recorded tenants and the land was partitioned between them in the year 1935, whereby each line got forty-five and half decimals of land. Pachuwa was allotted forty-five and half decimals of land in the Eastern side of the plot and Rameshwar Hazam and Villa Hazam were allotted forty-five and half decimals of land on the Western of the plot. 6. Pachuwa sold forty-five and half decimals of land to one Basanti Lal Jain on 15.05.1942 and this piece and parcel of land, changed hands several times by registered deeds of sale over the years. Through chain of title, the land was finally transferred to Sushila Devi. Mutations in the name of the parties were accordingly made. 7. One sale-deed was executed by Rameshwar Hazam and Villa Hazam with respect to their share of forty-five and half decimals of land to the ancestor of the plaintiff(s), Akhouri Dhananad Prasad on 09.06.1943 and the land was duly mutated and the present plaintiffs are the heirs and descendants of said Akhouri Dhananda Prasad. 8. The defendant claims title and possession over the land, in question, on the basis of sale-deed executed by Mundri Devi (Defendant No.4), W/o Villa Hazam vide Sale Deed dated 16.08.1989. 9. Learned Trial Court framed the following main issues which are as under: - (vii) Whether plaintiff has title over the land as mentioned in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint? (ix) Whether sale deed no.987 dt.16.8.89 executed by defendant no.4 in favour of defendant no.1 is void, forged, inexecutable and not binding upon the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 and 3? 10. Learned Trial Court recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence on record that title had been transferred with respect to land by the Registered Sale-deed executed on 09.06.1943 (Ext.1/D) in favour of the plaintiff(s), divesting any title whatsoever in favour of heirs and descendants of the vendors of the sale-deed. 11. Learned First Appellate Court in its judgment has referred the main questions of determination as to which of the two sale-deeds will prevail. 2026:JHHC:5229 Meaning thereby, whether the sale-deed executed in the Year, 1943 in favour of the plaintiff(s) by the original recorded tenants, or the sale-deed executed in the Year, 1989 in favour of defendant(s) will prevail. 12. Learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court by holding that the sale-deed of the Year, 1943 in favour of the plaintiff(s) would prevail and that Mundri Devi had no right or title to execute the sale-deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant(s). 13. The instant Second Appeal was earlier admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the ground of being void or voidable Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be attracted or not?” 14. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Anil Kumar, has pressed I.A. No.2101 of 2026 filed for formulating additional substantial question of law to be framed in the present case for hearing of the instant second appeal. I. Whether the learned courts below have acted illegally and perversely in not applying the judicial mind while considering the boundaries of the suit property as the claim of the plaintiff's property over 45 and 1/2 decimal of land as per the sale deed no.2855, in the year 1943 (Ext. 1/D) and sale deed No. 2325 in the year 1942 and Sale Deed No. 4138 in the year 1980 (Ext. 1/F and Ext. 1/C), lastly sold to Sushila Devi, the boundaries of the said land is the same in both the documents and as such no relief could be claimed against the appellant? II. Whether the learned courts below have acted on no evidence or ignored the material evidence for identification of the title of the plaintiff on the basis of documentary evidence? III. Whether the learned courts below have made wrong inference of the documentary evidence whereas the plaintiff's suit itself was not maintainable against the appellant? IV. Whether the disputes of land which the plaintiff claiming himself on the basis of sale deed no.2855 /1943 can be said to be illegal when the same land having same description of boundaries purchased by Babu Basanti Lal Jain vide sale deed No.2325/ 1942 (Ext.1 /F) and no cause of action arose for the plaintiff against the appellant and the learned courts have committed illegality while appreciating the said documentary evidence? 15. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the appellant/defendant that in order to entitle the plaintiff (s) to the declaration of title and recovery of possession, it was incumbent on their part to have specified the boundary of the plot, which they claim to have purchased from Rameshwar Hazam and Villa Hazam in the Year, 1943. 2026:JHHC:5229 The fact of the matter is that boundary of the land which Pachua Hazam had sold in the Year, 1942 to one Basanti Lal Jain, and the land which plaintiffs claim are the one and the same. Therefore, in absence of clear boundary, there cannot be any declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to it. 16. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs that there had been amicable partitioned between the lines of Pachuwa Hazam, Rameshwar Hazam and Villa Hazam way-back in the year, 1935 and each party had been allotted separate share. This part of the averment made in the pleading has nowhere been denied in the written statement in para-9. 17. It is contended that there is no dispute whatsoever with respect to boundary of land. In support of his contention, a reference is made to Ext.1/F which is the copy of the sale deed executed by Pachua Hazam in favour of the Basanti Lal Jain, wherein in the schedule, the boundary of the plot is on the eastern side. The party who purchased the land took the same and has raised no objection to the boundary of the same. ANALYSIS 18. Indisputably, Pachuwa Hazam, and Sahdeo Hazam, Ghuja Hazam were the recorded tenants and the land was partitioned between them in the year 1935 whereby each line got forty-five and half decimals of land. 19. Partition was acted upon, parties transferred their share by registered sale deeds and the names of the transferee were accordingly mutated from time to time. Land sold by the recorded tenant Pachuwa Hazam got transferred several times and none of the parties raised any objection to the area or boundary of land. These transactions were never challenged. Therefore, to contend at this juncture that there was no clear boundary of the respective share, in question is not tenable. 20. Ext.1/F which is the copy of the sale deed executed by Pachua Hazam in favour of the Basanti Lal Jain, specifically mentions the share of the sold property on the eastern side. This vindicates the case of the Plaintiffs that Pachuwa was allotted forty-five and half decimals of land in the Eastern side of the plot and Rameshwar Hazam and Villa Hazam were allotted forty-five and half decimals of land each on the Western side of the plot. At no point of time there was any cloud on the boundary save and except for the first time raised at the second appellate stage. 2026:JHHC:5229 21. Once a property was sold by way of sale in favour of the plaintiff (s) by Villa Hazam in the year, 1943 along with his brother Rameshwar Hazam to the plaintiff (s), he and his legal heirs including defendant no. 4 were divested of any title in the suit property to execute the sale deed on 16.08.1989 in favour of the contesting defendant no. 1. 22. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that there is no ambiguity so far, the boundary of plot of land, purchased by the plaintiff(s) way back in 1943, is concerned. Even the said sale deed was never challenged. Even otherwise this is a question of fact which cannot be recked up at the stage of second appeal. 23. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2101 of 2026 for framing additional substantial question of law, is not tenable and stands dismissed. 24. So far, the first substantial question of law is concerned, the same is with respect to Article 59 of the Limitation Act regarding the limitation of three years and for cancellation of sale deed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the cause of action arose on 26.03.1995 and 28.03.1995 when defendant no. 1 had encroached upon the plaintiffs’ land, described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the Trial Court has returned the finding in Issue No. 5 that the suit was not barred by limitation and the same has been affirmed in the concurrent finding by the learned Appellate Court. There cannot be a third Court to adjudicate on the issue of limitation. 25. Under the circumstance, this substantial question of law is decided against the appellant/defendant no. 1. Second Appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/Pawan Uploaded 20.02.2026