( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 152 of 2014 1. (a). Zamila Khatoon, wife of late Md. Nizamuddin 1(b) Md. Asif Eqbal son of late Md. Nizamuddin 1(c) Md. Arif Eqbal son of late Md. Nizamuddin 1(d) Md. Amir Eqbal, son of late Md. Nizamuddin 1(e) Zeba Kauser daughter of late Md. Nizamuddin 1(f) Khusnuma Kauser, daughter of late Md. Nizamuddin No. A-F all residents of Line Mohalla, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra. 1(g). Hena Kausar, daughter of late Md. Nizamuddin, wife of Md. Samsher, Bharatpur Simli, Malslami, Patna City, Patna, Bihar, PIN 800008. 2. (a) Balehswari Devi, wife of late Suraj Sao 2(b) Pradeep Kumar, son of late Suraj Sao 2(c) Pramod Kumar, son of late Suraj Sao 2(d) Birendra Kumar, son of late Suraj Sao 2(e) Saraswati Devi wife of Bajrang Sah, daughter of late Suraj Sao Resident of I.L. Shiv Mandir, P.S. I.E.L, Gomia, Sasbera, I.E. Gomia, , Bokaro, Pin Code 829112, No. 2 (a) to 2(d) all resident of Line Mohalla, P.O, P.S. and District-Chatra. 3. Murti Devi, Wife of Late Moti Ram 4. Gopal Paswan 5. Amarnath Paswan Sl. No, 4 & 5 sons of Late Moti Ram 6. Sugandha Kumari 7. Deepmala, Sl. No. 6 & 7 daughter of Late Moti Ram Sl. No. 3 to 7, all residents of village Nagwan P.O &, P.S.:Chatra, District: Chatra (Appellant no. 3-7, legal heirs of late Moti Ram, Original objector/appellant no. 3, who died on 05/12/2013, during pendency of Mise. Appeal Case No. 3/2012, but Could not be substituted) 8. Tilak Sahu 9. Pradeep Sahu 10. Oma Shankar Sahu Sl. No. 8 to 10 all sons of Late Ram Prasad Sahu, Residents of village Nagawan P.O chatra., P.S.: Chatra, District: Chatra. ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 2 11. Shanti Devi, Daughter of Late Ram Prasad Sahu, Wife of Sri Upendra Sahu, Resident of Village: Pathalgadda, P.O. & P.S.: Pathalgadda, District: Chatra. 12. Rohini Devi, Daughter of Late Ram Prasad Sahu, Wife of Pramod Sahu, Resident of Village: Chiridiri, P.O. and P.S. Rajpur, District: Chatra. 13. Soni Kumari, Daughter of Late Ram Prasad Sahu, Resident of Village: Nagwan, P.O. Chatra. P.S.+ District: 14. Yugal Yadav, Son of Late Budhan Yadav 15. Maina Yadav, Son of Late Gopal Yadav 16. Dukhan Yadav, Son of Late Mula Mahto 17. Ashok Yadav, Son of Late Megraj Mahto 18. Rajendra Yadav, Son of Late Rama Yadav 19. Chandra yadav 20. Kuleshwar Yadav S. No. 19 & 20 are sons of Late Manki Yadav 21.Md. Asir Mian, Son of Tuli Mian 22. Md. Shamsuddin 23. Md. Maksood Sl. No. 22 & 23 sons of Late Hadis Mian Sl. No. 14 to 23, all are residents of Village: Nagwan, P.O. + P.S. + District: Chatra. ……………..Appellants -Versus - 1. Kapoor Chand Jain 2. Prem Chand Jain Sl. No. 1 & 2 both sons of Late Moti Lal Jain & Late Shanti Devi Jain 3. Pawan Kumar Jain, Son of Late Shanti Devi Jain 4. Tara Devi Jain 5. Hemlata Devi Jain ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 3 Sl. No. 4 & 5 both daughters of Late Moti Lal Jain 6. Vijay Kumar Agrawal 7. Uday Shankar Agrawal 8. Pradeep Kumkar Agrawal Sl. No. 6 to 8 all sons of Late Baijnath Prasad Agrawal 9. Most. Kusum Devi, Wife of Late Baijnath Prasad Agrawal Sl. No. 1 to 9, all residents of Mohalla: Marwari, P.O. + P.S. + District: Chatra 10. Savita Devi Agrawal, Wife of Shantan Agrawal, Daughter of Late Baijnath Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Village: Haider Nagar, P.O. & P.S.: Haider Nagar, District: Palamau. 11. Suraji Devi, Wife of Late Bandhan Saw 12. Chohan Sao 13. Sai Nath Sao 14. Subodh Sao 15. Daso Sao 16. Heeraman Sao 17. Ajay Sao Sl. No. 12 to 17, all sons of Late Bandhan Sao, 18. Most Dhanpati Devi, Wife of Late Dukhan Sao Sl. No. 11 to 18 all residents of Mohalla: Surhi, P.O. & P.S.: Chatra, District: Chatra. 19. Manawa Devi, Wife of Barho Sao, resident of Mohalla: Kishunpur, P.O. + P.S. + District: Chatra. 20. Radhawa Devi, Wife of Shankar Sao, Daughter of Late Bandhan Sao, Resident of Village: Khapia, P.O. & P.S.: Simaria, District: Chatra. 21. Mundali Devi, Daughter of Late Bandhan Sao, Wife of Mahendra Sao, Resident of Village: Bandu, P.O. & P.S.: Lawalong, District: Chatra. 22. Sabita Devi, Daughter of Late Bandhan Sao, Wife of Kamal Saw, Resident of Village: Bandu, P.O. & P.S.: Lawalong, District: Chatra. 23. Sarita Devi, Daughter of Late Bandhan Sahu, Wife of Shyam Prasad Sao, Resident of Village: Jatrahibag, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District: Chatra. ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 4 24. Smt. Sohgila Devi, Daughter of Late Bandhan Sao, Wife of Bablu Saw, Resident of Village: Kandari, P.O. + P.S. + District: Chatra. 25. Sugiya Devi, Daughter of Late Bandhan Sao, Wife of Sumar Saw, Resident of Village: Sataur, P.O. + P.S.+ District: Chatra. 26. Andiya Devi, Wife of Sohri Sahu, Daughter of Late Bandhan Sao, Resident of Village: Ramtunda, P.O. + P.S. District: Chatra. ……………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : 18/Dated: 29/04/2026 Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 19th May, 2014, passed by learned District Judge II, Chatra, in Misc. Appeal Case No. 03/2012, whereby & whereunder the Learned District Judge II, Chatra, dismissed the Misc. Appeal Case No. 03/2013-(preferred under Order XXI Rule 97, 103 of C.P.C. r/w section 151 of CPC) and affirmed the Judgment dated 03.07.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Chatra, in Misc. Case No. 2/2011, arising out of Execution Case No. 1/68, filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 101, read with section 151 of the C.P.C. 3. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in Execution Case No. 1/68, a petition under Order XXI Rule 97, 101, read with section 151 of the C.P.C was filed which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Chatra, in Misc. Case No. 2/2011 which was further challenged before the learned appellate court in Misc. Appeal Case No. 03/2012 which was also dismissed. He further submits that the learned courts have not decided the issue on contest and in view of that there is error and as such law points are there to admit the present second appeal. 4. It appears from the judgments of the learned courts that said petition was filed in the Execution Case No. 1/68 stating therein that Md. ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 5 Nizamuddin and 12 others have filed Misc. Case No.02/11 in Execution Case NO.01/68 which was pending in the court of the then learned Sub Judge-1" Chatra for execution of the decree passed in T.S.No.37/50,/63/66 which was filed by Motilal Jain and others (plaintiffs/respondents/decree holders) against Bhagwati Prasad Jaiswal and others. The case of the Appellants/objectors is that 16.65 acres of land under Plot NO.1477,1480 and 1497 under khata No.01, Tauzi No.28, Thana NO.175 of village, P.S and Dist-Chatra stood recorded as Zerat land of Raja Laxmi Narayan Singh of Ramgarh estate, during cadestral survey operation. Laxmi Narayan Singh had two sons, namely, Raja Bahadur Kamkhaya Narayan Singh and Basant Narayan Singh. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh has one son Indra Jitendra Narayan Singh and wife Lalita Raj Laxmi. Basant Narayan Singh has one son, namely, Mayur Dhwaz Narayan Singh. After death of Laxmi Narayan Singh his eldest son Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh has created a bogus and fictious firm named and styled as "Ramgarh firms and industries Ltd", a joint stock company, with limited liability incorporated under Indian Companies Act-VII of 1913 having its registered office at 22 Chitranjan Avenue, Kolkata. The ex-landlord settled the suit land as well as other land with Ramgarh firm and Industries Ltd through a registered deed of settlement dated 12.02.1948. In the year 1953-54 the State of Bihar after enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950( here in after referred as B.LR Act) has flied a case bearing No.14/53-54 against Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd and others before Addl. Collector, Hazaribag u/s.4(h) of B.LR Act 1950, alleging therein that the said firm has been created to defeat the provisions of BLR Act by the ex-landlord. Vide order dated 29.06.76 the case was decided by the learned AC Hazaribag and it was held that Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd did not in fact and in reality exist and its existence, is mere show on paper. The firm was not genuine and had been created with the sole object to defeat the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and put the State to ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 6 loss by depriving the State Government from large tracts of Gair Mazarua land which would have been vested in the state under the Act. It was further held by the learned court of A.C Hazaribag that with the deeds of sale made by the Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd in favour of individuals during the pendency of Misc. Case No.14/53-54 will not create any valid title in favour of the transferees and vendees. During that period the said Ramgarh firm and Industries Ltd has executed a registered deed in favour of Bandhan Sao, Motilal Jain and Baijnath Prasad Agrawal (respondents), on 17.05.56 and sold the land of Khata No.1 Plot No. 1460,1477,1480 and 1497 comprising total area 16.65 acres. The order dated 29.06.76 passed by the then learned A.C Hazaribag was never challenged before the competent authority hence it got the status of finality, so the registered sale deed dated 17.05.56 executed in favour of Bandhan Sao, Motilal and Baijnath Prasad Agrawal was annulled and the property covered under the said sale deeds remained as Zerat land of ex- landlord. The decree holder or their ancestor never came in possession over the land in question. On 24.11.06 the decree holders executed several registered sale deeds in favour of judgment debtor and other person with respect to the suit land. Neither the decree holder nor their ancestor, nor the vendee of the decree holder came in possession of the suit land. Since the registered sale deed dated 17.05.56 was void and inoperative, so the entire sale deed executed to the vendee by the decree holder, has no value in the eyes of law. Motilal Jain and others brought a collusive T.S.No.37/63,/50/66 before Additional Sub Judge, Hazaribag against Bhagwati Prasad Jaiswal and others with respect to the suit land. The suit was decreed on 29.03.67. Against that Judgment and decree, F.A No.203/67 was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed on 07.05.77, on the sole ground that the decree holders/plaintiffs had got valid title through the aforesaid alleged sale deed dated 17.05.56 executed by Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd. Neither the plaintiffs/decree ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 7 holder nor the defendants/ Judgment debtor disclosed about the case pending u/s.4(h) of B.LR before the learned A.C Hazaribag with respect to the suit land. Hence, fraud was played by them on the Hon'ble Court. Even, during hearing of T.S.No.37/63/50/66 plaintiffs or the defendants have never disclosed regarding case No. 14/53-54 pending in the court of learned AC Hazaribag. After death of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh, his son Indra Jitendra Narayan Singh executed 12 registered sale deeds on 04.07.94 which was registered on 27.10.94 in favour of appellants/objector and they came in exclusive possession thereof. The details of the registered sale deed and name of vendee as well as Khata No. plot number and area are mentioned in schedule-A of the petition. One proceeding u/s.144 Cr.PC and subsequently u/s.145 Cr.P.C as Misc. Case No.87/96 was filed by some of the judgment debtor against the appellants/objectors, which was decided in their favour vide order dated 24.01.97, then the appellants/objectors preferred Cr.Rev. No.65/97(R) before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, for setting aside the order dated 24.01.97. The Hon'ble Court has been pleased to give liberty to the parties to refer their dispute concerning the suit land to the Civil Court for final adjudication vide order dated 03.04.2007. Therefore, S.L.P No. 4983/07 was filed before the Hon'ble Apex court by the judgment debtor, which was dismissed on 07.07.2007 with a direction to move again the High Court for modification of last para of order dated 03.04.97. Then the defendants/Judgment debtor preferred modification Case No.162/07 before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand which is pending for disposal. In that case the appellants/objectors have appeared. All of a sudden from Manohar Jaiswal S/O. Late Bhagwati Prasad Jaiswal on 26.07.2011 they came to know that the decree holders have filed Execution Case No.01/68 before the Addl. Sub Judge, Chatra to execute the decree passed in T.S. No. 37/63./50/66 and the delivery of possession is to be given with respect to the suit land, so this petition was filed. ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 8 The applicants/objectors have also filed T.S.No.27/11 against the decree holders and their vendees for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for declaration that the decree passed in T.S. No.37/63,/50/66 is not binding upon the objectors/appellants. 5. Notices were issued. Prem Chand Jain and Uday Kumar Agrawal have appeared and filed their rejoinder stating therein that the petition filed U.O.XXI.R.97 and Rule 101 R/W Sec.151 of the C.P.C by the appellants objectors is barred by principles of res-judicata. The case is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The Judgment debtors have set up these objectors to file false and frabulous objection in order to delay the disposal of the execution case. The objectors/appellants alleged to have purchased the portion of the suit property during the pendency of execution case NO.01/68 without taking leave of the court, so the petition filed by the objectors/appellants is also hit by principles of lis-pendence. The land of Khata NO.1 of village Chatra was Zerat land of Raja Ramgarh, who has settled the same with Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd through a registered deed and thereafter Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd sold the same to the predecessors in interest of the decree holder/respondents. So the heirs of Raja Ramgarh has got no right title and interest to transfer the suit land in favour of Objectors/appellants, neither the objector/appellants got any right, title and interest over the suit land. The decree holder or their heirs were not party to the proceeding us 4th of BLR Act so the same is not binding upon them. 6. The objectors/appellants herein have examined P.W.1 Nizamuddin, P.W. 2 Sukhdeo Pandey, P.W.3 Jamuna Yadav and P.W.4 Md. Samsad Alam. The documents exhibited are Exhibit 1 to 1/k original sale deeds. Exhibit 2 certified copy of the order dated 29.06.76 in Case No.14/53-54. 7. The decree holders have examined D.W.1 Bijay Kumar Agrawal and the documents exhibited are Exhibit. A- certified copy of judgment passed by ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 9 Sub Judge, Hazaribag in T.S. No.37/50.63/66, Exhibit B-certified copy of judgment of the High Court. The learned trial court after going through the evidence has been pleased to dismiss Misc. Case 02/11 by judgement dated 03.07.2012. 8. Being aggrieved by aforesaid Judgment the objectors/appellants have preferred the Misc. Appeal Case No. 03/2012 before the learned District Sessions Judge which has been dismissed by judgment dated 19.05.2012. 9. The learned appellate court in para 7 of the said judgment has formulated two points to decide the said Misc. Appeal. 10. While deciding the said points the learned appellate court found that the appellants/objectors are purchaser of the suit land from Indra Jitendra Narayan Singh, son of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh vide various registered deeds of sale Exhibit.1 to 1/k series dated 04.07.94 and 27.10.94. Where as respondents/decree holders/plaintiffs are purchaser of the suit land from Ramgarh firm and Industries Ltd. Motilal Jain and others and they have have preferred T.S.No.37/63,/50/66 before the court of learned Sub Judge. Hazaribag for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of the suit land. The same was decreed vide Judgment dated 29.03.67. For execution of the decree the plaintiffs/decree holders have preferred execution Case No.01/68. 11. The back ground of the case is that Ramgarh Raj was under the management of the court of wards from 26.01.1913 to 10.08.1937, when the Ramgarh Raj was released, Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh became the Proprietor of the estate from that management. The suit land (khata No.1) was Zerat land, used to be cultivated by temporary Thekedar on year to year settlement till 1948. Raja Bahadur by a permanent indenture created raiyati interest in favour of Ramgarh firm and Industries (defendant No.5) by a deed dated 12.05.48. On 11:01.97 the sale deed was registered in their favour by ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 10 Ramgarh firm and Industries Ltd. The defendants created disturbance. In the meantime Ramgarh-firm-and industries Ltd filed title suit in the original side of Kolkata High Court for declaration of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiffs by them invalid. There was a proceeding under section 145 Cr.PC also. Some of the defendants forcibly occupied some portion of the suit land and ultimately get a decision in their favour under section 145 Cr.PC and in view of that suit was filed. 12. In that case Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd defendant No.5 put forward the case that sale deed was registered, but as the plaintiffs did not pay the full consideration money, therefore, in terms of the documents the servant of Raja Bahadur has taken forcible possession of the suit land. However, the said suit was decreed by the learned court of Addl. Sub Judge Hazaribag on 23.03.67 against the contesting defendants. Against the said Judgment and decree Bhagwati Prasad Jaiswal and others have preferred first appeal before the Hon'ble Patna High Court. The division bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal on contest. During hearing of the T.S.No.37/63/50/66 defendants No.1 & 2 have filed a petition for amendment of their written statements as Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh and the State of Bihar are said to be necessary party. They sought for permission to include certain paragraphs in their written statements. 13. This matter was raised before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, during hearing of First Apepal arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned court in T.S.No.37/63,/50/66. One Safruddin D.W.2 was examined by defendant No.5, but he has suppressed having knowledge of the same. The learned trial court vide order dated 05.01.67 has been pleased to reject the prayer for amendment. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has been pleased to opined that the prayer for amendment of the written statement was rightly rejected by the learned Addl Sub-Judge. Against that Judgment no case ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 11 was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the facts remains that the first appeal was dismissed wherein the contention was made on the part of appellants/objectors that Hon'ble Patna High Court was kept in dark and the fact regarding proceeding initiated under section 4(h) of B.L.R Act was not put up before the Hon’ble Patna High Court. The appellants herein admitted before the Court that they filed a suit for the same suit land as T.S.No. 27/11 against decree holder and their vendees and they have also filed a petition under Order XXXL Rule 97 and Rule 101 read with section 151 CP.C before the learned executing court in execution Case No.01/68 and the learned court has found that since the Title Suit .No.27/11 is pending before the court of law, this court is not required to go into that matter, but the learned counsel of respondents/decree holders have raised the point that this petition is hit by principle of res-judicata. 14. In para 9 of the said judgment the learned appellate court has dealt with the materials on record including the evidence of witnesses as well as the documents and found that the case of the appellants/objectors basically related to claim of the appellants/objectors for declaration of their right, title. interest and possession over the suit land in the back ground of the first order of the learned A.C passed on 29.06.76 in Case No.14/53-54 in a proceeding initiated against Ramgarh firm and industries Ltd and others by State of Bihar under section 4(h) of B.L.R Act and secondly on the basis of registered deed of sale executed in their favour by Indra Jitendra Narayan Singh and in view of that the learned court has found that appellants/objectors have not been able to prove the case. Bijay Kumar Agrawal D.W.1 who is respondents/decree holders has stated that Ramgrah firm and Industries Ltd through registered deed of sale sold the suit land in favour of respondents parties and other late Baijnath Prasad Agrawal, Motilal Jain and Bandhan Sao. One title suit was filed which was decided in their favour, then his father Baijnath Prasad Agrawal and ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 12 others have filed execution case No.01/68. He was not knowing whether any petition was filed for mutation by them or not? He was also not knowing about case No.14/53-54 filed under section .4(h) of B.L.R Act however, he has stated that this fact has been disclosed in the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in first appeal. He also denied the suggestion that the objectors before 1994 used to cultivate the land as share croppers. 15. The learned court has found that no document has been produced by the appellants/objections to show that order passed by the learned A.C. on 29.06.276 in Case No. 14/53-54 confirmed by the State Government. The Court has further opined that in the light of Provisions made under the BLR Act was confirmed by the State Government and further Bakast and Zerat land were to be governed by the provisions of BLR Act. The learned court has relied on judgment in the case of “Sharda Prasad Rai Vs. State of Bihar” reported in AIR 1984 (Pat) 65. 16. Considering that another suit has also been filed by the appellants the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the miscellaneous appeal. 17. While deciding the petition under Order XXI, Rule 101, and 98 the duty of the Executing Court is to determine on the basis of two adjuncts (i) that such question should have legally arisen between parties and (ii) such question must be relevant for consideration and determination between the parties. Upon adjudication of such questions, executing court is under an obligation to pass appropriate order as contemplated under Rule 98 or 100 as the case may be. When eventually such order is passed, it would be treated as decree and no separate suit would lie against such order and therefore only remedy is to prefer an appeal before appropriate court against such deemed decree. As the decree is already in favour of respondents and it has been affirmed in the first appeal in the execution case against the same was adjudicated by the appellants/objectors which has been dismissed by the ( 2026:JHHC:12581 ) 13 executing court and further by the first appellate court. 18. The cogent reason has been given. The court finds that what has been argued by Mr. Sharma for admitting the present second appeal is not tenable in view of the fact the learned courts have dealt with the issue exhaustively. As such this second appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 29.04.2026 Satyarthi/A.F.R