Village v. Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.164 of 2009 ------ the judgment dated 18.04.2009 passed by learned (Against Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.109 of 2007) 1. Ali Imam 2. Sk. Akhtar ------ (Serial No.1 to 2 are the sons of Late Hussain) 3. Sk. Nawsad 4. Sk. Asraf 5. Sk. Asgar (Serial No. 3 to 5 are the sons of Late Sk. Yunus) All are by caste Muslim, by profession cultivators, resident of village: Kokodoro, P.S. : Pithoria, District : Ranchi. 6. (i) Halima Khatoon wife of Late Hadis Ansari resident of Kokodoro P.O. Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District Ranchi. (ii) Majina Khatoon (daughter) Wife of Mansur Ali resident of Math Toli, P.O. Mudma P.S. Nagri, District Ranchi. (iii) Sajina Khatoon (daughter) wife of Sakil Ahmad resident of Village & P.O. Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District Ranchi. (iv) Rajina Khatoon (daughter) Wife of Sabir Ahmad, resident of village Badaghi P.O. Lem Badagai P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi. (v) Akhter Ansari son of Late Hadis Ansari, resident of Village & P.O. Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District Ranchi. ....
Legal Reasoning
.... …. Plaintiff-Appellants /Appellants. 1. (a) Idul Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Kasim, resident of- Village Versus Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (b) Reyazual Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Kasim, resident of- Village Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. 2. (a) Moin Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Jasim, resident of- Village: 1 S.A. No.164 of 2009 Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (b) Nayum Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Jasim, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (c) Ainul Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Jasim, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (d) Izhar Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Jasim, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. 3. (a) Shakil Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Ahmad, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (b) Najbul Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Ahmad, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (c) Javed Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Ahmad, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (d) Parvez Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Ahmad, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. (e) Ali Imam Ansari, Son of Late Sk. Ahmad, resident of- Village: Kokodoro, P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi. 4. Sk. Naimullah 5. Sk. Enamul (Serial No. 4 to 5 are the sons of Late Sk. Leakat). 6. Sk. Hafijulla, son of Sk. Miajan Sr. No. 4 to 6 All are by caste Muslim, by profession cultivators, resident of village : Kokodoro, P.S. : Pithoria, District: Ranchi. .... .... …. Defendant- Respondents/Respondents ------ For the Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ 2 S.A. No.164 of 2009 By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of concurrence dated 18.04.2009 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.109 of 2007 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi being the learned first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court being the Additional Munsif-1st, Ranchi in Title Suit No.150 of 1995 dated 17.08.2007 whereby and where under the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants filed with a prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs’ title over the suit land and for removal of the construction made by the defendants thereon and cost of the suit. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the ancestors of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 as well as the plaintiff No.6 himself purchased the suit land by a registered sale-deed executed by Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo. As the defendants created trouble in the enjoyment of the suit of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed a case under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land and they are trespassers. As the defendants did not accede to the request to handover the possession of the suit land, hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit. 4. The defendants in their joint written-statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. Besides it was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit land; as Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo had no right, 3 S.A. No.164 of 2009 title and interest over the suit land, to transfer the same to the plaintiffs as the said Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo was neither in possession of the suit land, on the date of alleged transfer in favour of the plaintiff No.6 and the ancestors of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 i.e. on 05.11.1965 nor on the date of vesting of the said property with the State of Bihar. The defendants further pleaded that Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo orally settled 0.270 acres of land out of the suit plot in favour of Sheikh Ahmad- who is the father of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. The oral settlement was confirmed by delivery of possession and grant of rent receipts coupled with customary Hukumnama dated 13.12.1948; upon which the settlee came and continued in possession of the settled land and paid rent to the landlord, upon grant of rent receipts. After death of the settlee Sheikh Ahmad, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 inherited the same and they in the family arrangement, have allowed their nearest relatives being the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to come in the possession over the said settled land. Thus, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Even if there is any defect in the title of the defendants, the same stood perfected in favour of the defendants by way of adverse possession, by the defendants remaining in possession over the suit land. The said Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo also orally settled 0.40 acres of land, out of the suit plot No.51, in favour of Sheikh Miya Jan, who is the father of the defendant No.6 and the same was confirmed by delivery of possession and grant of rent receipts followed by customary Parwana dated 13.12.1938. The said settlee also came and continued in possession of the settled land by paying rent to the landlord on grant of rent receipts. The defendants further denied the entire pleadings of the plaintiffs; made in the plaint. 4 S.A. No.164 of 2009 5. The learned trial court upon recasting the issues, settled the following eight issues:- (1) Whether the suit is maintainable as framed? (2) Whether plaintiffs have any valid cause of action for the suit? (3) Whether Maharaja Ratu, Chinta mani Nath Sahdeo sold and had right to sell the lands including the suit lands to the plaintiffs’ ancestors as alleged? (4) Whether the plaintiffs’ ancestor came in possession of the lands, including the suit lands by virtue of the alleged sale deed dated 5.1.1965 in respect thereof in favour of the plaintiffs’ ancestor and after plaintiffs’ ancestors, the plaintiffs came and are in possession thereof? (5) Whether said Maharaja settled the lands including suit land with the defendant’s ancestors as alleged and they came and after them the defendants are in possession of the same including the suit land? (6) Whether defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land and made construction thereon forcibly in 1995 as alleged by the plaintiffs or the construction on suit land are since long before, as alleged by the defendants? (7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the defendants as claimed? (8) What relief, if any, is the plaintiffs entitled to? 6. In support of his case, the plaintiffs altogether examined six witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 3, while the defendants examined nine witnesses and also proved the documents which were marked Ext. A to Ext. C/1. 7. The learned trial court first took up issue Nos.(3) to (7) together and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that since Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo had no subsisting right, title and interest to sell the land including the suit lands to the plaintiffs’ ancestors by virtue of Ext. 3, hence, the defendants have succeeded in establishing that the suit lands were orally settled and possession was delivered in favour of their ancestors. The learned trial court also came to the finding that the evidence in the record suggests that the defendants never came in possession of the suit land by virtue of the Ext. 3- the sale-deed executed by Maharaja Chintamani 5 S.A. No.164 of 2009 Saran Nath Sahdeo. The learned trial court did not consider the second plea of alternative plea of adverse possession of defendants; as according to the learned trial court, since the defendants have succeeded in establishing their title by way of ownership, there is no necessity for considering their plea of perfection of title by way of adverse possession and decided the issue Nos.(3) to (7) against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. 8. The learned trial court next took up the issue Nos.(1), (2) and (8) together and on the basis of its findings in respect of the issue Nos.(3) to (7) went on to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to establish any valid cause of action for the suit and the suit framed against the defendants, is also not maintainable. The learned trial court further held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and dismissed the suit on contest. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.109 of 2007 in the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment, as already indicated above. 10. The learned first appellate court on the basis of the materials available in the record and the submissions made before it, formulated the following three points for determination:- “(i). Whether the Plaintiffs have been able to prove their ‘title’ to the Suit lands? If Yes. (ii). Whether the Defendants have been able to prove acquisition of title through adverse possession? (iii). Whether the judgment and decree under appeal requires any interference by this First Appellate court?” 6 S.A. No.164 of 2009 11. The learned first appellate court took up the point for determination Nos.(i) and (iii) together and made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and considered that neither in the recital of the sale-deed nor in the plaint of the plaintiff nor in the evidence of any of the six witnesses examined by the plaintiffs, it has come that the vendor of the sale-deed namely Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo authorized any person specifically to Bhaiya Raghomani Nath Sahdeo, to accept the execution of the sale-deed marked Ext. 3 on his behalf before the Registrar nor any document containing such authority to represent the vendor before the Registrar, is attached in the sale-deed nor is available anywhere in the record. The learned first appellate court considered the judgment rendered by the five judges full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Mossamat Ugni vs. Chowa Mahto reported in 1968 BLJR page-93 wherein the law was settled that oral settlement accompanied with delivery of possession and acknowledgment of tenancy by acceptance of rent by landlord is sufficient to prove the acquisition of raiyati rights and went on to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to the suit land. The learned first appellate court also considered that the documents put forth by the defendants go to show that the State Government also recognized the father of the defendants namely Sheikh Miya Jan- as a raiyat of the land settled and accordingly opened Jamabandi of the suit lands in his name. The learned first appellate court then considered that after vesting of the estate into the State Government, the ancestors of the defendants who were the settlee were recognized as tenant of the settled land, which is the suit land and created Jamabandi in his name. The learned first appellate court also considered that in the sale-deed marked Ext. 3, no manner of the vendor of the 7 S.A. No.164 of 2009 sale-deed having right, title and interest over the land sold, was mentioned and went on to hold that the plaintiffs have not come to court with clean hands and mind and miserably failed to prove their title and answered the points for determination Nos.(i) and (iii) against the appellants/plaintiffs and in favour of the respondents/defendants. 12. The learned first appellate court then took up the point for determination No.(ii) and considering the fact that the plaintiffs filed the suit, the defendants are not required to prove their adverse possession; did not record any finding in respect of the point for determination No.(ii) and dismissed the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SK. Bhikan vs. Mehamoodabee & Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 127 paragraph-17 of which reads as under:- “17. When the Court is called upon to interpret the documents and examine its effect, it involves questions of law. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the High Court to decide such questions on merits. In this case, the High Court could do so after framing substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 of the Code. It was, however, not done.” and submits that it being a settled principle of law that when the Court is called upon to interpret the documents and examine its effect, it involves question of law and the learned first appellate court has committed a grave illegality in interpreting the documents marked Ext. 3 i.e. the sale-deed executed by Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and the plaintiff No.6 himself. Therefore, the necessary substantial question of law is to be framed and this Second Appeal be admitted. 8 S.A. No.164 of 2009 14. It is next submitted that both the courts below have committed perversity by not considering the settlement of the land in favour of the ancestor of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and the plaintiff No.6 himself through registered Patta transferring 2.48 acres of land conferring right, title and interest upon them. It is next submitted that both the courts below ought to have held that the plaintiffs upon purchase of the suit land from Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo, had been paying rent of the land continuously to the State of Bihar and thus, the appellants/plaintiffs have established their right, title and interest. It is next submitted that both the courts below committed a serious error of law in not considering that the Bakast Maalik lands were the personal lands after the cultivation of the ex-landlords and the ex-landlords were the owners thereof. It is further submitted that both the courts below ought to have treated the defendants to be the trespassers. It is lastly submitted that both the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court, are not sustainable in law, hence, the same be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 15. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SK. Bhikan vs. Mehamoodabee & Others (supra) is concerned, the same is a settled principle of law but the fact is that in this case no error has been committed either by the learned trial court or by the learned first appellate court in interpretation of any document or examining its effect. The case of the parties is crystal clear and it is that the 9 S.A. No.164 of 2009 plaintiffs and the ancestors of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 as well the plaintiff No.6 himself and the ancestors of the defendants claim respective title over the suit land on the basis of the acquisition made by them from the one and the same person i.e. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo. The case of the defendants is that their ancestors acquired the same by way of oral settlement followed by delivery of possession which was acknowledged by acceptance of rent and executing Hukumnama and Parwana. Prior to a sale-deed purportedly executed by Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo which was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar’s Office by a person supposed to have been authorized by Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo and not by Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo himself. As has rightly been pointed out by the learned first appellate court, there is absolutely no pleading of the plaintiffs in the plaint that someone other than Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo presented the sale-deed for registration. So, as rightly held by the learned trial court, the vendor of the ancestor of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and the plaintiff No.6 himself was not having any right, title and interest in respect of the suit land, the same having ceased to exist in his favour after oral settlement of the suit land by him in favour of the ancestors of the defendants followed by acceptance of rent and execution of Hukumnama and Parwana. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any error having been committed by the courts below in holding that consequent upon the oral settlement of the suit land in favour of ancestor of the defendants and even the State of Bihar recognizing the settlee being the ancestor of the defendants as the tenant even after vesting of the land, with the State of Bihar and opening 10 S.A. No.164 of 2009 Jamabandi in their favour as also the fact that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their possession over the suit land and it is the admitted case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are in possession of the suit land and the failure of the plaintiffs to show their possession of the suit land by any cogent evidence as well as the defect in registration of the sale-deed marked Ext. 3, the same having been produced by a person other than the executant of the sale- deed, this Court do not find any perversity in the finding of the facts of both the courts below and in view of such clear case of the defendants, no illegality has been committed by either of the courts below in interpretation of the documents brought on record by way of evidence. 17. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit land was earlier the Bakast land of Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo is concerned, there is no bar for the Maharaja to transfer his Bakast land in favour of anyone else of his choice. So, this contention of the appellants has no legs to stand. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. 19. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of November, 2024 AFR/ Animesh (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 11 S.A. No.164 of 2009