Dayanand Jha v. Shatrughna Prasad Yadav

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Uday Shankar Sharan Singh (GP-19), Adv. : : Patna High Court SA No.51 of 2023(7) dt.18-02-2025 7 18-02-2025 This Second Appeal has been filed against the ORAL ORDER judgment and decree dated 21.11.2022 passed in Title Appeal No. 25 of 2008 by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII, Madhubani whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 02 of 2004 by the learned Munsif-II, Madhubani has been reversed and the appeal of the plaintiffs has been allowed. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiffs are the respondent-Ist set.

2. Title Suit No. 02 of 2004 was filed for declaration of title and also for declaration that the order dated

30.08.1997/11.07.1998 passed in Basgit Parcha Case No. 40 of 1995-96 / 02/1998-99 was forged and fabricated without jurisdiction, ab initio void and recovery of possession of the suit land and also for permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that Sarinath Jha was ancestor of the plaintiffs, who died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Japinath Jha, Tilaknath Jha and Jankinath Jha. The original plaintiff no. 2, namely, Muchkund Jha was son of Japinath Jha and Dayanand Jha, who is plaintiff no. 1 is the son of Muchkund Jha. Jeevnath Jha was maternal grandson of Jankinath Jha. Plot No. 214 measuring 2 kattha 4 dhurs with other lands were in share and possession of Jankinath Jha, who Patna High Court SA No.51 of 2023(7) dt.18-02-2025 used to remain in possession over the said land with perfect title. It is further contended that Jankinath Jha died leaving behind a daugther Lutani Ojhayan and Jeevnath Jha was son of Lutani Ojhayan. Jeevnath Jha was the son of the sister of Muchkund Jha. It is further pleaded that Jeevnath Jha gifted 2 kattha 4 dhurs out of Plot No. 214 with other land to Muchkund Jha vide gift deed dated 03.01.1985 and the delivery of possession was also given to Muchkund Jha since then he remained in possession of the suit land with perfect title. It was further pleaded that the defendant was resident of Mauza Madhubani Doab P.S. Babu Barhi Dist.-Madhubani. It is further pleaded that defendant constructed a house over the land of PWD with a shop in the said house but in the year 1996 the said house was demolished in encroachment drive. Further, the case of the plaintiffs, is that the separation took place in the family of the plaintiffs and according to partition and adjustment Plot No. 214 measuring 2 kattha 4 dhurs fell in the share of plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 and they got possession of the said land. It is contended that after demolition of the house, the defendant shifted from PWD land and wanted to take forcible possession over the area 10 dhurs out of Plot No. 214 and as such apprehension of breach of peace arose. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was Patna High Court SA No.51 of 2023(7) dt.18-02-2025 initiated on the basis of police report. Both the sides appeared and filed their show cause. The defendant stated in his show cause that he got Basgit Parcha in respect of Plot No. 214 measuring one decimal equivalent to 6 dhurs. But the said Basgit Parcha was not obtained by the defendant inspite of that the S.D.M., Madhubani dropped the proceeding vide order dated

01.11.1996.

4. Subsequently, the defendant obtained Basgit Parcha on 30.08.1997 with respect to Plot No. 214 measuring one decimal equivalent to 6 dhurs. The plaintiffs came to know about the said facts on 11.07.1998. The plaintiffs then filed C.W.J.C. No. 6051 of 2003 before this Court but subsequently the plaintiffs withdrew the said petition on 25.08.2003. Further, the case of the plaintiffs, is that the defendant after obtaining the Basgit Parcha constructed shop on 02.09.2003 in absence of plaintiffs and dispossessed the plaintiffs from the land detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint which is the land in question. Further, case of the plaintiffs, is that the name of Muchkund Jha (plaintiff no. 2) has been mentioned in Column-2 of the Basgit Parcha who was the owner. It was further pleaded that no notice was issued to the plaintiffs in Basgit Parcha proceeding, the notice form 'F' was also not issued. No inquiry or legal Patna High Court SA No.51 of 2023(7) dt.18-02-2025 inspection was made by any Officer and the defendant fraudulently got the Basgit Parcha in collusion with Anchal officials. The Basgit Parcha is forged, fabricated and without jurisdiction. The defendant is the resident of Mauza Madan Doab P.S.-Babubarhi where he has house since the time of his forefather. The defendant has about 5 Bighas land and the defendant was neither privileged person nor privileged tenant, he was not entitled to get Basgit Parcha. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the said Basgit Parcha issued in Basgit Parcha Case No 02/1995-96 filed by defendant was forged, fabricated, ante-dated void ab initio and the said Parcha was not in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs asked to vacate the suit land. The defendant refused on 04.01.2004.

5. On other hand after appearance, the defendant filed written statement stating that the suit was not maintainable. The plaintiffs have no right or cause of action to file the suit and also the suit was barred by the provision of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act and Specific Relief Act. The further case of the defendant is that he was coming in possession of Plot No. 214 since 20-25 years and they had no knowledge of gift deed dated 03.01.1985 executed by Jeevnath Jha in favour of Muchkund Jha in respect of Plot No. 214 measuring 2 kattha 4 Patna High Court SA No.51 of 2023(7) dt.18-02-2025 dhurs with other lands.

6. After considering submissions made on behalf of the appellant and on perusal of materials on record including the judgment of the learned courts below, it appears that the learned court of appeal below which is the final court of fact, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them came to a clear finding that the defendant/appellant was not given Parcha vide Basgit Parcha Case No. 02/1995-96. From Ext.-5 certified copy of proceeding of Basgit Parcha of Case No. 40/1995-96 /02/1998-99, it appears that Satrudhan Pd. Yadav filed an application for issuance of Basgit Parcha on 15.01.1996 but in the same proceeding it has been written that the Halka karamchari on

14.07.1995 and Anchal Nirakshak had reported and recommended for issuance of Basgit Parcha stating that on the land in question the house of Satrudhan Das is standing. The Basgit Parcha filed by defendant no. 1 is Ext.-C in which Basgit Parcha Case No. 02/1995-96 has been mentioned but the order sheet of the Basgit Parcha case doesn't show the name of Satrudhan Pd. Yadav as an applicant rather it is name of Ram Dayal Yadav. This shows that the Basgit Parcha Ext.-C is forged, fabricated, ante-dated. The learned lower appellate court Patna High Court SA No.51 of 2023(7) dt.18-02-2025 has further held that the defendant produced the documentary evidence which prima facie appears forged, fabricated and had been issued illegally without jurisdiction and the Basgit Parcha Ext.-C in the name of Satrudhan Pd. Yadav is forged one and the same has been obtained by playing fraud and as such the order dated 30.08.1997/11.07.1998 of Anchal Adhikari, Babubarhi passed in Basgit Parcha No. 40/1995-96 /02/1998-99 and Basgit Parcha in the name of defendant no. 1 Satrudhan Pd. is declared as illegal without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court doesn't find any illegality in impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below nor does it find any substantial questions of law involved in the instant second appeal.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C.. (Khatim Reza, J) prabhat/- U