Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.632 of 2011 =================================================== 1. Ramraj Singh S/O Late Kanhiya Singh R/O Gopi Bigha (Jamuhar ), P.O. Jamuhar, P.S. Dehari, Distt. - Rohtas .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Collector, Rohtas At Sasaram R/O P.O. + P.S. Sasaram, Distt. - Rohtas 2. Ahchal Adhikari Dehri R/O P.O. + P.S. Dehri, Distt. - Rohtas .... .... Respondent/s =================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant:-Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jai Prakash Singh =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 7 01-02-2013 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred for hearing under Order 41
Legal Reasoning
Rule 11 of the Code. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2011 and 17.10.2011 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-FTC No.3, Sasaram in Title 2 Patna High Court SA No.632 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2013 2 / 8 Appeal No. 106 of 2010, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2010 and 01.09.2010 respectively, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 30/2004, whereby the title suit filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 3. The suit property is said to have been described in Schedule-K of the plaint as Old Khata no. 49, Plot No.6 (old) Khata No.17 (new), plot No. 193 (new) admeasuring 2.10 decimal situated at mouza Rudrapura, P.S. Dehri, District Rohtas. The suit was for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit land and further declaration that the defendant State of Bihar had no concern with the same and it was only liable to issue rent receipts and entitled for rent. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was based on the plea that the suit land was settled in favour of his ancestors in the year 1945 by the ex-landlord under “Sada Patta” before vesting of Zamindari. It was pleaded that the plaintiff used to pay malguzari till the date the zamindari was vested in the State of Bihar and that after vesting of the 3 Patna High Court SA No.632 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2013 3 / 8 zamindari in the State of Bihar, the plaintiff became raiyat of the State Government on the basis of his name having been entered in the return filed by the ex-landlord. Zamabandi was, accordingly, opened in the name of the plaintiff who continued paying rent to the State Government but during the revisional survey name of State of Bihar was wrongly recorded in R.S. Khatiyan. It was further plea of the plaintiff that at his instance a Rent Fixation Case No. 1 of 1986-1987 was initiated whereupon the concerned Circle Officer had recommended his case for fixation of rent to Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) who in turn fixed the rent and forwarded the file to the Additional Collector for approval of fixation of rent. A plea was taken that the DCLR was the final authority for fixation of rent and file was unnecessarily forwarded to the learned Additional Collector in this regard. 5. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants- respondent (State of Bihar) with the plea that the suit land was never settled with the plaintiff by the ex-landlord. The State of Bihar denied 4 Patna High Court SA No.632 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2013 4 / 8 plaintiff’s claim of possession over the suit land and questioned the genuineness of the documents brought on record on behalf of the plaintiff by way of evidence. 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties to the suit, learned trial Court altogether framed seven issues including issue nos. (iii) and (iv) which reads as follows:- “(iii) Whether the plaintiff has acquired the land by settlement from the ex-landlord? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has acquired title and possession over the suit land?” 7. After the issues having been framed, the evidences were led both oral and documentary. On the basis of such evidence the learned trial Court came to the finding that the plaintiff did not bring on record any document either of return or of Zamabandi or any other such document so as to show that the plaintiff was in cultivable khas possession over the land in question. Referring to the “Sada Patta” of the year 1945 (Ext.2) and the Ekrarnama (Ext.3), learned trial Court held that these two documents did not categorically prove the khas possession of the plaintiff 5 Patna High Court SA No.632 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2013 5 / 8 on the date of vesting of the Estate. Learned trial Court on the basis of the physical assessment of documents, namely, Ext.2 and Ext.3 doubted the very genuineness of the same observing that it appeared to be tampered and held that the plaintiff did not have any subsisting title over the suit land and that the plaintiff was not in khas possession over the suit land on or before the date of the vesting of the Estate. 8. An appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court vide Title Appeal no. 106 of 2010 in the file of learned Additional District Judge, FTC-III, Sasaram who also on the basis of material and evidence available on record, concurring with the findings of fact of the learned trial Court came to his own finding that the appellant could not prove his title over the suit land and rejected the first appeal. In this background the present second appeal has been preferred.
Legal Reasoning
9. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts below took 6 Patna High Court SA No.632 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2013 6 / 8 erroneous view while adjudicating upon the plaintiff’s title over the suit land and wrongly refused to consider the documents placed on behalf of the plaintiff in support of his title over the suit land. He further submitted that in any view of the matter, in view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1993(2) PLJR 255 (Sitaram Choubey, Vs. State of Bihar), the Courts below should not have held that the State of Bihar had title over the suit land. Referring to the rent fixation case initiated at the instance of the plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms was the final authority who had fixed the rent and thereafter he unnecessarily referred the file to the Additional Collector for approval. 10. On perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned First appellate Court, I find that there is concurrent findings of fact to the effect that on the basis of the evidence/material available on record the appellant/plaintiff could not prove his title or even 7 Patna High Court SA No.632 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2013 7 / 8 possession over the suit land. The findings as arrived at by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse and without any material available on record. It has not been contended that the findings of the Courts below are contrary to the material available or without any material on record. 11. It does not need any reiteration that the scope of this Court of interference in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code is very limited, with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, particularly, when such findings cannot be said to be perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings are erroneous. As has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court the concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code even if another view is possible on the basis of the same material. I am also of the view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law to be determined by this Court. 12. So far as the judgment reported in 8 Patna High Court SA No.632 of 2011 (7) dt.01-02-2013 8 / 8 1993(2) PLJR 255, Sitaram Choubey Vs. State of Bihar ( supra) is concerned, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, I am of the view that the same would not apply in the present case, for the reason that the Courts below have not made any declaration of title in favour of the State of Bihar. The Courts below have held that the appellant/plaintiff could not prove his claim of title and possession over the suit land.
Decision
13. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Arun Kumar/-